Hierarchy of evidence: a framework for ranking evidence evaluating healthcare interventions.

By David Evans. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 2003

975 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, General Health Professions

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9d6cb4005bf5a0da962b1f6c0e018df252c28a40

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In General Health Professions

Citations in the corpus

Interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness among older people: an integrative review (2018, methodology): “Methodological quality was evaluated by examining the quality of each study using the hierarchy of evidence as a guide (Evans 2003), and its execution thereof.”
On doing better science: From thrill of discovery to policy implications (2017, background): “Meta-analysis are supposed to be at the highest rung of the hierarchy of evidence (Evans, 2003); but if not well done how useful can they be to policy (Ioannidis, 2016a)?”
Estudos de revisão sistemática: um guia para síntese criteriosa da evidência científica (2007, background): “* Para definição dos níveis de evidência, ver <http://www.cebm.net/levels_of_evidence.asp#/levels>; † Figura adaptada de Evans (2003); Akonbeng(2005b).”
Using Qualitative Research (2004, background): “Advocates of qualitative research are especially incensed by the use of hierarchies of evidence that assume the randomized clinical trial as the gold standard in inquiry, which thereby devalues or frankly excludes qualitative research (Evans, 2003; Mitchell, 1999).”
The state of play of blockchain technology in the financial services sector: A systematic literature review (2020, background): “Subsequently, systematic reviews are promoted in this connection as one of the strongest areas of evidence-based financial practice (Evans, 2003).”
IDEAS (Integrate, Design, Assess, and Share): A Framework and Toolkit of Strategies for the Development of More Effective Digital Interventions to Change Health Behavior (2016, background): “RCTs are considered the most robust study design for evaluating interventions due to their ability to minimize bias [8,19,76].”
Reaching the hard-to-reach: a systematic review of strategies for improving health and medical research with socially disadvantaged groups (2014, background): “A number of hierarchies of evidence exist [11-13] and were adapted for this study (refer to Table 1).”