Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16336598

Single case study and evidence-based practice.

T Stickley·C Phillips
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Single case study and evidence-based practice With the current emphasis upon evidence-based medicine in statutory health care provision in the UK, mental health nursing is challenged to justify its approaches. Psychological theories, once taken for granted in mental health nursing, are now being challenged by new definitions of evidence. In this paper the authors focus upon the use of individual case study. The discussion questions the validity of applying the hierarchies of evidence proposed by evidence-based medicine to mental health nursing theory and practice. The role of case study as the prime source of evidence is argued and is justified in mental health nursing research and practice.

Explore related subjects

Case-Control StudiesEvidence-Based MedicineHumansMental DisordersPsychiatric NursingJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

T Stickley, C Phillips. 2005. Single case study and evidence-based practice.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2850.2005.00902.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Control of confounding through secondary samples.

The control of confounding is essential in many statistical problems, especially in those that attempt to estimate exposure effects. In some cases, in addition to the 'primary' sample, there is another 'secondary' sample which, though having no direct information about the exposure effect, contains information about the confounding factors. The purpose of this article is to study the influence of the secondary sample on likelihood inference for the exposure effect. In particular, we investigate the interplay between the efficiency improvement and the possible bias introduced by the secondary sample as a function of the degree of confounding in the primary sample and the sizes of the primary and secondary samples. In the case of weak confounding, the secondary sample can only little improve estimation of the exposure effect, whereas with strong confounding the secondary sample can be much more useful. On the other hand, it will be more important to consider possible biasing effects in the latter case. For illustration, we use a formal example of a generalized linear model and a real example with sparse data from a case-control study of the association between gastric cancer and HM-CAP/Band 120.

Case-Control Studies↗
PubMed2006

Diabetes mellitus and risk of bladder cancer: a meta-analysis.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Epidemiological evidence indicates that individuals with diabetes mellitus have an increased risk of several cancers. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis to evaluate the association between diabetes and risk of bladder cancer. METHODS: Pertinent studies were identified by searching MEDLINE (from January 1966 to July 2006) and by reviewing the reference lists of retrieved articles. We included case-control and cohort studies reporting relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs (or data to calculate them) of bladder cancer associated with diabetes. Studies of type 1 diabetes were not included. Summary RRs were calculated using a random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies (seven case-control studies, three cohort studies and six cohort studies of diabetic patients) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Analysis of all studies showed that diabetes was associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer, compared with no diabetes (RR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.08-1.42). There was strong evidence of heterogeneity among these studies (p < 0.0001). Stratification by study design found that diabetes was associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer in case-control studies (RR = 1.37, 95% CI 1.04-1.80, p (heterogeneity) = 0.005) and cohort studies (RR = 1.43, 95% CI 1.18-1.74, p (heterogeneity) = 0.17), but not in cohort studies of diabetic patients (RR = 1.01, 95% CI 0.91-1.12, p (heterogeneity) = 0.35). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Findings from this meta-analysis suggest that individuals with diabetes may have a modestly increased risk of bladder cancer.

Case-Control Studies↗