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, 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.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice 医学-卫生保健

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.