Evidence-Based Decision Making in Psychological Research: A Network Meta-Analysis

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of evaluation in clinical practice Pub Date : 2025-02-03 DOI:10.1111/jep.14302
Fatmanur Çimen, İsmail Seçer
{"title":"Evidence-Based Decision Making in Psychological Research: A Network Meta-Analysis","authors":"Fatmanur Çimen,&nbsp;İsmail Seçer","doi":"10.1111/jep.14302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Network meta-analysis (NMA) was introduced in the 1990s as an extension of standard meta-analysis. Since then, it has been utilized in various scientific fields, particularly in medicine, to evaluate the effectiveness of therapies/interventions/treatments applied for specific outcomes. In recent years, NMA, which offers a highly attractive methodology for researchers, clinicians and decision-makers, has gained popularity as a form of evidence synthesis. Recognized as providing the ‘highest level of evidence’, NMA is also crucial in conducting research in psychology and psychiatry. With advancements in psychology and psychiatry, specific programmes or interventions have been developed and continue to be developed to address particular problem areas. Due to the variety of these treatment methods, there has not yet been a study focusing on the direct comparison of some treatments. Therefore, the aim of this article is to introduce the NMA method and highlight its potential in evidence-based decision-making, particularly in the field of psychopathology. By doing so, it is anticipated that the perspective of clinicians can be broadened in planning appropriate therapies for psychopathologies.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The article was written as a comprehensive review using certain keywords.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Consequently, it becomes challenging for decision-makers, clinicians, or researchers to determine the best treatments for a specific outcome. At this point, NMA offers the opportunity to analyze direct and indirect comparisons of various treatments applied in psychology within a single analysis, thus holding great potential for researchers and practitioners. Despite this potential, NMA has not received sufficient attention from researchers in this field.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>In conclusion, NMA holds significant potential for use in psychology, where many treatment options exist, and its use is encouraged among clinicians and researchers in the field.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.14302","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Network meta-analysis (NMA) was introduced in the 1990s as an extension of standard meta-analysis. Since then, it has been utilized in various scientific fields, particularly in medicine, to evaluate the effectiveness of therapies/interventions/treatments applied for specific outcomes. In recent years, NMA, which offers a highly attractive methodology for researchers, clinicians and decision-makers, has gained popularity as a form of evidence synthesis. Recognized as providing the ‘highest level of evidence’, NMA is also crucial in conducting research in psychology and psychiatry. With advancements in psychology and psychiatry, specific programmes or interventions have been developed and continue to be developed to address particular problem areas. Due to the variety of these treatment methods, there has not yet been a study focusing on the direct comparison of some treatments. Therefore, the aim of this article is to introduce the NMA method and highlight its potential in evidence-based decision-making, particularly in the field of psychopathology. By doing so, it is anticipated that the perspective of clinicians can be broadened in planning appropriate therapies for psychopathologies.

Methods

The article was written as a comprehensive review using certain keywords.

Results

Consequently, it becomes challenging for decision-makers, clinicians, or researchers to determine the best treatments for a specific outcome. At this point, NMA offers the opportunity to analyze direct and indirect comparisons of various treatments applied in psychology within a single analysis, thus holding great potential for researchers and practitioners. Despite this potential, NMA has not received sufficient attention from researchers in this field.

Conclusion

In conclusion, NMA holds significant potential for use in psychology, where many treatment options exist, and its use is encouraged among clinicians and researchers in the field.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
期刊最新文献
Trajectories and Influencing Factors of Self-Management Behaviour in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Longitudinal Study Development and Validation of an Instrument to Assess Quality and Completeness of Medication-Related Discharge Documentation Overcoming the Utopian Perspectives on Health: Health Must Also Include States of Unwell-Being Associations Between COVID-19 Vaccination Status and Persistent Symptoms: A Prospective Study of Reproductive-Age Women A Comparison of Patient Self-Reported Fatigue in the FRAIL Scale With a Validated Fatigue Measure
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1