What is an efficient resource that saves time for evidence-based practitioners?

Systematic reviews are highly regarded as an efficient resource for evidence-based practitioners because they comprehensively summarize existing research on a specific question by systematically searching for, selecting, and synthesizing all relevant studies. This approach minimizes bias and enhances the reliability of the findings compared to other types of literature, such as narrative reviews or expert opinions, which may not follow a rigorous methodology and may miss key studies or introduce subjectivity.

For practitioners who are pressed for time, systematic reviews offer a consolidated current understanding of a topic, highlighting the best available evidence backed by multiple studies. This allows healthcare professionals to make informed decisions based on robust data without having to review numerous individual studies themselves.

In contrast, narrative reviews can be less structured and may not include a complete overview of the available evidence, while primary research involves sifting through individual studies, which is often time-consuming and requires critical appraisal skills. Expert opinions, while valuable in certain contexts, lack the comprehensive nature and systematic rigor of systematic reviews, which makes them less reliable for forming evidence-based conclusions.