Nutrition

Evidence-Based Medicine [also referred to as Evidence-Based Practice] is the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. The practice of evidence-based medicine means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research.

Source: Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996 Jan 13; 312 (7023): 71-2.

The EBP process has 5 steps, as discussed in Albarqouni et al. (source below)

1. Ask - Develop a relevant, answerable clinical question
2. Acquire - Plan, search & find the best available evidence
3. Appraise - Critically appraise articles for validity & applicability
4. Apply - Integrate the evidence into practice
5. Assess - Evaluate your clinical decision

Source: Albarqouni L, Hoffmann T, Straus S, et al. Core Competencies in Evidence-Based Practice for Health Professionals: Consensus Statement Based on a Systematic Review and Delphi Survey. JAMA Netw Open. Published online June 22, 20181(2):e180281. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0281

Tutorial| PICO Framework: How to build an evidence based research question.

"PICO" is a mnemonic acronym to help you remember the elements that should be identified when formulating a question and search strategy to retrieve the most recent, pertinent, and valid research studies to guide decision making that results in quality healthcare.

P = Population (usually identifies a specific population with topic of interest)

I = Intervention (or exposure)

C = Comparison

O = Outcome

 Differences between a systematic review and other types of reviews | from Cochrane Library

"A systematic review identifies an intervention for a specific disease or other problem in health care, and determines whether or not this intervention works. To do this authors locate, appraise and synthesize evidence from as many relevant scientific studies as possible. They summarize conclusions about effectiveness, and provide a unique collation of the known evidence on a given topic, so that others can easily review the primary studies for any intervention.

Systematic reviews differ from other types of review in that they adhere to a strict design in order to make them more comprehensive, thus minimizing the chance of bias, and ensuring their reliability. Rather than reflecting the views of the authors, or being based on a partial selection of the literature, (as is the case with many articles and reviews that are not explicitly systematic), they contain all known references to trials on a particular intervention and a comprehensive summary of the available evidence. The reviews are therefore also valuable sources of information for those receiving care, as well as for decision makers and researchers."