Introduction

In the context of healthcare, decision-making has been identified as a process that

requires rationality and professionalism in the interest of the patient. It poses a very big
challenge in the flow of information because health care professionals are exposed to
numerous information that are hard to different between proofs and myths. To
overcome this challenge, clinicians undertake an organized and sequential process of
evidence-based practice comprise of analyzing evidence, critiquing, and implementing.
Firstly, evidence identification or the process of collecting information includes the use
of credible sources including published articles from related and peer reviewed journals,
clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews. Clinicians then use criteria that have
undergone testing to assess the quality and suitability of the evidence based on study
characteristics such as sample size, study design, or p values. Finally, the healthcare
professionals implement the results to clinic practice taking into the account patient
values and preferences. This systematic approach will ensure that the decisions
reached are evidence based and enhancing the quality of patient care as well as health
care delivery. Therefore, using the outlined methods and strategies, health care
personnel and consumers can overcome the various factors that affect the access of
quality information and improve the health care sector.
Identification of Evidence Methods
There of course are ways that clinicians use to find the current knowledge base and
update themselves on certain fields and practices. One such search strategy
encompasses the use of medicinal databases such as PubMed, Embase, and
Cochrane Library containing a great pool of peer-reviewed articles and systematic
reviews. Moreover, clinicians may consult other documents including the clinical
practice guidelines of such organizations like the World Health Organization or of some
associations and committees for the given specialty which contain the sum up of
recommendations proved as useful. Sharing information by working with other
professionals and taking part in professional associations also plays an important role in
exchange of information and sharing of evidence. Moreover, the provision of
conferences, workshops, and other forms of continuing education requires the
availability of up-to-date research literature and a chance to deliberate on the findings of
the studies. Through the use of such methods, clinicians are thus able to obtain
substantial and pluralistic evidence relevant to the decision-making process besides
improving patients’ care.

1. Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Given that meta-analysis and systematic reviews are based on rigorous approach, high
methodological quality, and broader scope of evidence synthesis from quality primary
research studies, they occupy the top of the pyramid. These cooperative reviews were
established and implemented according to a preconceived guideline to comprehensively
locate, select, and assess the body of research focused on a particular clinical issue.
The advantages of systematic reviews and meta-analyses consist in the accumulation
of data from several researches and sources, which provide a greater statistical
significance and accuracy. That way they can identify trends that may not be very
recognizable in more compact sub- studies that have low statistical power. Moreover
they can look at several potential sources of heterogeneity and can investigate whether
an effect differs in a specific sub group hence helping in determining the external validity
of the study. Evaluating systematic reviews and meta-analyses requires attention to the
following questions. This is why selection of the primary studies should be closely
examined in terms of quality, as the quality of the review directly relates to the quality of
the primary studies used. The approaches used for data synthesis, the statistical model
for example, or the handling of heterogeneities need attention. Two aspects that are
crucial when considering meta-analytical results should also be evaluated – publication
bias, which may inflate the estimates for the overall effect; this should also be examined
using proper statistical tests and graphical analysis. Also important to take into account
is the date when the given review had been prepared, as some pieces of information
can become outdated in the meantime. This may require updates of relaying the results
on a regular basis or conducting what is referred to as live systematic review of current
research findings.
2. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs)
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the most accurate approach in
regarding the effectiveness and safety of the interventions due to their specific study
design and possibilities to control biased effects. Randomizing participant enumerates
in the experimental and control groups make the groups more homogeneous at the
baseline hence decreasing the chance of confounding factors and therefore making the
study internally valid. When using RCTs for critical appraisal the following factors should
however be considered During the appraisal of RCT’s, some important factors should
be considers. The sample size is important because small sample sizes lead to low
power means failure to record significant effects or inaccurate estimation of them.
Sample bias is a common issue in research and adequate randomization and allocation
concealment should be used to prevent sample bias and to achieve true simple random
sampling. The occurrence and detection bias are reduced through blinding or masking
of the participants, the researchers, and the assessors. Moreover, the management of
treatment and control variables such as missing data is another important factor when
choosing a statistics test since applying wrong approaches to missing data reduces the
validity of results. Other issues that might need to address include the use of proper
statistical anaysis techniques, including intention-to-treat analysis, in order not to nullify
the randomisation process. It is also important to identify whether or not the findings of
an RCT can be generalised. Clinicians should reflect and consider if the study
population, the type and dose of the intervention, and clinical context can be
extrapolated to the target population and practice environment. Common factors include
participants, intervenes, and measurements should be looked at so as to decide on the
level of generalization of the evidence. Altogether, RCTs appropriately target high level
of evidence regarding interventions due to their minimization of bias and confounding
factors in their strict application of study design and methodology. However, the aspects
evaluating research quality remains the key to assessing the validity and relevance of
findings to clinical practice.
3. Observational Studies
Nonetheless, observational studies are highly valuable in clinical practice since RCTs
are either impractical or unethical in situations like studying low-incidence diseases,
exposures that cannot be controlled, prolonged effects, or when individuals cannot be
randomly assigned to intervention or control groups. These types of research involve
collecting data in actual settings and can offer important information on the progression
of diseases, offending/protective risk factors as well as the connection between hazard
and effect. Clinicians should also be wary of how observational studies are categorized,
as studies can either be cohort studies, case control studies or cross sectional studies
and each one is different and possesses its own advantages and disadvantages.
Evaluating proposed steps to prevent bias and confounding is also important as
observational studies have inherent high risk of various types of bias including selection
bias, information bias, and confounding. Statistical analyses used should be closely
examined by minimizing the total interference of potential confounding factors and
maximizing the potential of quantifying the extent of association. Furthermore, the
sample size of the study, representativeness of the study participants, and the
possibility of residual confounding should be taken into account while judging the results
of the study and assessing their generalisability. It is crucial to acknowledge that, owing
to the limitations inherent in observational study design, these studies are indispensable
for hypothesis generation, risk factor characterization, and guidance for subsequent
interventional research. Substantial critical thinking is required to guarantee that
analysis and synthesis of the findings of the observational research are relevant to
clinical decision makin.
4. Clinical Practice Guidelines
Clinical practice guidelines constitute useful tools for clinicians, explaining and
summarising extensive medical literature and producing clinical recommendations
regarding precise clinical situations. These guidelines can be designed by professional
organizations or expert panels, including details on how to share current knowledge,
thus contributing to the general standard and best practice in the management of
patients. When considering clinical practice guidelines, the clinicians tend to assess the
methodology used in the guidelines. Adherence to systematic approach such as the use
of systematic literature reviews in collation of data, evidence grading, as well as proper
procedure for coming up with consensus improves on the reliability of the
recommendations. It is also essential to review the quality of the evidence that supports
each recommendation since guidelines that have been developed often integrate data
from various types of studies and categories of evidence. Interests of the parties
involved in the development of the guideline are another factor that should be
considered; mainly, conflicts of interest or competing interests that may be financial in
nature or otherwise may affect the formulation or interpretation of the guidelines.
Reporting of such matters and the steps taken to address the same plays a critical role
of determining the credibility and integrity of the guidelines. Furthermore, clinicians
should consider the relevance of the guideline recommendation to their clinical practice
and patient sufferers. Some of the modifiers that may affect the practicality and
relevance of the recommendations for a certain population include the patient’s
characteristics, medical histories, resource availability, as well as the regional standards
of practice. Literature identifies that to offer care that is personalized to the patient and
specific to his or her needs, it is necessary to make modifications to guidelines to reflect
patient circumstances and preferences. Through adopting a critical appraisal approach
to clinical practice guidelines clinicians are able to use these guidelines asserting that
national guidelines represent the synthesis of evidence and professional expertise of
the guidelines developers while exercising clinical judgement to ensure that the
recommendations accord with the best available evidence, patient preference and local
practice.
5. Expert Opinion and Clinical Experience
It should be noted that although expert opinion and clinical experience are below the
systematic review at the top of the pyramid, the information derived from these sources
can still be very useful, especially given the paucity of studies on the medical cannabis
in the scientific literature. Clinicians practicing for some years would have had a chance
to encounter many patients suffering from a particular disease and in the process they
can develop different insights and observations that would help to better understand the
disease and its manifestations and possible treatment options. However, it is worth
considering the argument that relying on the experience on the one hand, and the input
of experts on the other hand has its limitations, and therefore should be critically
examined. This may be due to factors such as practice setting, patients treated, or
mostly self-etching beliefs that affects the generalization of results. Also, the knowledge
with which experts approach the formulation of their opinions can be contaminated by
certain systematic errors, like the confirmation or anchor biases. When validating an
expert opinion or clinical experience that is being used in recommending a certain
procedure, such knowledge has to be extrapolated within the context of available
literature. Although they offer complementary and possibly relevant data, they cannot be
replaced with proper scientific researches. These sources should be
metacommunicated with other sources of higher quality; if there is a significant
difference in the validity of these two, the two should be further refined. However, when
assessing the reliability of the given expert’s opinion, it is also critical to look at the
experience and expertise of the expert, as well as possibility of his/her bias opinion.
Culture and norms associated with the field may also play a role in the validity of a
source, such as if the opinions are coming from a highly regarded source with evidence
based practice and literature to support the claim then it may be more believable than a
fresh student with little to no practicing background. Overall, considering the
observational expert opinion and clinical experience with the synthesis of relevant
research, specialists can develop broader knowledge of clinical situations, especially if
such knowledge is still developing or not abundant.
Evaluating Appropriate Evidence
The two primary frameworks for evaluating the relevance of evidence in clinical
decision-making are known as critical appraisal and context identification. The process
of critical appraisal is the careful and systematic assessment of the quality and validity
of the details as well as considering the aspects of design, methods chosen, and likely
sources of bias. At the same time, clinicians need to consider applicability of the
evidence within the context of the particular clinical situation, that will include patients’
values and preferences, available resources, or practicality of the implementation.
When employed in combination, the following strategies would promote the application
of quality evidence within healthcare decisions as well as values that are patient-
centered.

1. Assessing Study Quality and Applicability

The assessment of quality and relevance of the evidence is thus a critical step in
decision making on whether such evidence is appropriate for use in the intervention.
Such evidence may include rigorous clinical trials, credible retrospective and
prospective studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. While appraising quality,
the essentials that one needs to consider include the design of studies, methodological
risk of bias, precision and the degree of variability and consistency of the outcomes, and
the date of articles taken into consideration. In addition, another factor is the relevance
and transferability of the evidence to context of the clinical practice and patient
population of interest. Limitations of using evidence from well designed studies are that
the evidential value may not be transported if the study, patient and or clinicians,
interventions or outcomes differ significantly when using the evidence being
implemented in clinical settings. In this way, clinicians are capable of safeguarding the
information they depend on in a process of decision making, while guaranteeing the
quality of evidence and its relevance to the environment in which a practitioner works.
This analytical procedure seems to be vital in ensuring that timely and accurate care
plans based on patients’ individual needs are rendered. This process involves
considering factors such as:This process involves considering factors such as:
 Study Design: RCTs and systematic reviews occupy the highest level of the
evidence pyramid because of the high methodological quality of comparing a
new treatment to standard of care in a clinical trial. After randomization, masking,
and other techniques, RCTs have good rigor in track the internal validity of an
intervention. Systematic reviews utilise extensive search and evaluation
techniques to combine data and information from several cross-sectional and
cohort or RCTs. This integration boosts the statistical analysis, highlights trends
across research studies, and improves the external validity for the findings. RCTs
are a powerful tool for generating internally valid evidence, while systematic
reviews provide external validity, allowing them to be used to formulate superior
quality, bias-free treatments that can assist clinicians as well as form the basis of
the guidelines.
 Risk of Bias: Exclusion and explanation of prejudice is a significant and vital
component of assessing research outcomes. Such biases may occur in the
research process both in design, conduct, and reporting phases and if not
accounted for may severely compromise the results obtained. Another limitation
is selection bias, which can occur if the method used to enroll the participants
varies across the study arms results in Improper ratios that may affect the
results. Performance bias could still occur when the study groups had different
 amount of care or attention given to them apart from the intervention undergoing
assessment. Detection bias can be produced where there are differences in the
factors affecting outcomes assessment or measurement between the groups.
Selective reporting of outcomes or analyses, known as reporting bias, is another
type of bias that can alter the published literature and overall evidence. Critical
evaluation of the study method, data collection and reporting procedures is
necessary to avoid biased results and interpret the findings in the light of
available evidence.
 Precision and Consistency of Results: In judging about utilising evidence for
practice in clinical setting, where ever possible, it is important to compare the
evidence from several such high quality studies. Feasibility, validity, and reliability
due to replication at different population, different geographical areas, and
different methods make the findings more believable and realistic. On the other
hand, results that are contradictory or vague across studies can create confusion
and complicate its use in making any concrete conclusions. Such inconsistencies
can be seen because sometimes the studies differ in their design, samples,
treatments, or outcomes. They can also indicate that there are potential source of
bias, an interaction, or other conditions that have to be considered. Depending
on the intensity of evidence conflict, meticulous procedure of critical evaluation
and exploration of possible sources of heterogeneity should take place before
applying intercessions or altering practice. Cross-sectional validation increases
the credibility of the solution as well as evidence-based practice through
providing consistent outcomes of multiple other rigorous researches..
 Applicability and Generalizability: The importance of determining relevance of
the particular evidence cannot be overestimated, as well as how applicability and
generalizability of the evidence can be achieved in the presented clinical context.
In analysing study outcomes, it is crucial to assess the extent to which such
features of the study subjects as age, co-morbidities, and disease stage
resemble the population of patients for whom the treatments and/or control
strategies are envisioned in real-world clinical practice. Also, the interventions
and comparators to be used in the study must match the treatments available
 and the best practice in the proposed clinical practice environment. Also, the
targets defined need to be pertinent and significant in health care context with the
patient and healthcare provider. In my opinion, in order to enhance the
application of the discovered evidence in the clinical practice, several factors
should be taken into consideration: This way, clinicians can make appropriate
conclusions about the degree to which study results can be used when working
with their patient populations as well as in addressing the existing practice-based
priorities.
 Publication Date and Currency: The medical profession is a dynamic industry
and professionals are doing further studies and research experiments and trials
on a regular basis. Clinicians should therefore always be aware of the time when
they are applying evidence so that they may be in a position to factor in current
evidence that may be out there and which may change the approach to be used.
Limited reliance on literature may result in semantic obsolescence, thus creating
possibility of outside current knowledge that may affect patient care, such as
newer studies may deem prior studies ineffective, unpleasant, or may offer new
treatments or interventions. It cements the clinicians to the literature hence in a
position to apply updated evidence in patient care Since existing theories remain
under constant update, the continuous monitoring of the literature guarantees
that the clinician is informed about the latest developments. Additionally, certain
forms of research might be sensitive to the speed of development within given
fields or disciplines, and certain disciplines might be prone to have less research
available at any given time. Clinicians should keep abreast of new developments
in the literature and appraise the newest articles critically so that they can bring
to bear the best care practice that is reasonably up-to-date with relevant medical
knowledge and breakthrough.

In this way, factors including study methodology, design of the study, and its
generalisability to clinical practice allow clinicians to critically review the evidence, and
therefore make rational decisions that will yield the best outcomes for patients.
2. Considering patient Preferences and values
Biases combined with patient values and preferences should always be part of the
decision-making process to uphold patient values. Specifically, the current framework
recognizes that decisions related to the healthcare system cannot be made in a vacuum
solely after the political/social influences of the healthcare system had been considered.
Clinicians have to work with their patients in order to make decisions about care:
considering their patients’ values and preferences together with their own goals and
objectives. From the above components, clinicians can apply the values based-
approach to give recommendations that work best for the patient thus making
compliance and level of satisfaction higher. As a result of introducing such a patient-
centred model, providers establish a working partnership with individual patients and
ultimately build rapport with patients. In so doing, clinicians can ensure that patients’
preferences and values are incorporated into decision making about health care
interventions and, accordingly, such interventions can be clinically warranted and at the
same time, patients’ rights and choices are being protected.
Engaging in shared decision-making with patients involves
 Transparent Communication of Evidence-Based Treatment Options
In the clinical practice, it is crucial to be objective and disclose the existing information
content as it helps to make an informed decision. Clinicians need to explain the
evidence, the benefits, harm or risks, and the level of uncertainty relevant to each
option. In this way, patients are not only informed about their disease but also about
possible consequences of management/management and its results. Such practice
enhances shared decision making that enables the patient to choose the treatment
plans that are compatible with his/her values, goals, and preferences. In conclusion,
clear health communication empowers patients to have more control over their
healthcare experiences and decisions, which can then increase patients’ compliance to
their recommended treatment regimens.

 Patient-Centered Care Through Understanding Patient Values

Identifying, assessing, and addressing the preferred approach to care is fundamental to
patient-centered care. By listening to the patient, putting oneself in the patient’s shoes,
and partnering with patients, the clinicians can understand factors that characterize the
individual journey of each patient. By applying these insights into clients’ decision-
making processes, the clinicians shall be in a position to develop treatment plans that
are fitting to the patient’s goals, values and desires. It not only increases patients’
compliance and contentment with care but also strengthens the mutually conducive
rapport between the patients and the providers. Therefore, patient-centered care
focuses on the patient when making decisions involving his or her health care and aims
at enabling the patient to be an active participant in the treatment process.

 Collaborative Decision-Making
Integrating patient considerations with evidence-based research requires the
engagement of the difference between patients, as well as their care providers, and
meaningful conversation and recognition of patients’ values and priorities. This process
understand that their clinical decisions require more than just and optimal evidence to
work with but also the patient goals and values. Clinicians have to engage the patients
realizing that the treatment recommended need to reflect the patients’ wishes, values
and goals while receiving care. Being patient-centric leads to building very strong,
positive, and productive patient-doctor relations that ensure better treatment, high
compliance and, hence, better solutions. In analysing the role of patient involvement
and preferences, it is important to derive conceptual support from the existing models of
patient involvement and patient satisfaction, as well as from nursing literature that
stresses the importance of patient-centred care and patient self-determination.

According to the experience of the projects as well as the system and political theory,
valuing patient involvement in decision-making is an important way to deliver evidence-
based practices in ways that meet patient needs and agendas. This approach enhances
the interaction between the clinicians and the patients and helps to build a strong and
healthy relationship that makes the patient feel that they are being handled by someone
who understands them fully. Integrating patients’ input with clinical approaches, the
fundamental healthcare choices are even more effective and oriented to the goal
improvement, thus increasing their effectiveness and presence.
Impact on Clinical Practice
The use of high quality and appropriate evidence in practice is crucial to increase the
chance of better patient care, increase the quality of overall healthcare, and to work
more effectively and efficiently. This evidence is used in such a manner as in decision
making in the treatment process of the patient. Therefore, clinicians are in a better
position since there is a guideline and protocol to follow to enable selection of the most
appropriate intervention to offer the patient based on their disorder. Also, using EBPs
aids in enhancing practice efficiency by minimizing care tossing since it aligns the
treatment approaches used between different heath care institutions. Firstly, ‘evidence
based medicine’ helps in the prevention of diseases through the adoption of early
screening programs. When incorporating preventive care guidelines into practice,
clinicians are able to recognize potential risk factors for illness, which, in turn, may
decrease the likelihood of incidence and/or the advancement of diseases. However, the
situational and evidence-based practice is essential in healthcare policymaking and
resource management. Evaluators help inform the decision-makers and healthcare
providers with empirical data to formulate policies, treat teaching, funding, and
implementing care that results in improved patients’ outcomes. Lastly, translating
evidence into healthcare services will benefit the patients’ health, increase safety
measures for the patients and make a prudent utilization of the limited healthcare
resources available hence delivering quality health care.
1. Enhancing Clinical Decision-Making
Tailoring the principles of evidence-based practice combine clinical expertise with
patient values and current systematic research. Increasingly, decision-making relies on
scientific evidence, while remaining open to clinical judgment influenced by knowledge,
understanding, and shared insights about the patient. This broad perspective improves
diagnosis by controlling potential errors, making sure that the application of the
diagnostic tests and assessments goes through evidence-based practices. Likewise,
treatment plans are also more effective if adjusted and suited according to the particular
situation of a respective patient, which will lead to better following of a treatment plan in
general. In the case of chronic illness, effective and efficient treatment practices
facilitate disease management, hence some clinical effectiveness research helps
minimize adverse effects and promote improved health among patients with chronic
diseases. By incorporating the use of research findings as a basis for arriving at
decisions by clinicians, the efficiency and quality of the healthcare that is delivered will
be improved to be effective as well as patient-centred thereby leading to positive
changes in the systems that support healthcare.
2. Promoting Standardization and Reducing Practice Variation
Adopting CPGs and PPGs makes care coherent, hence reducing variations in practice
among care practitioners that are considered inessential. This synchronization means
that whoever is treating patients will find the best practices to incorporate in their care
for a specific condition or disease. Implementing and following guidelines and practices
support a decreased rate of danger in healthcare-connected hazards and mistakes,
boosting patient safety. Furthermore, the integration of evidence-based practices
operating in a deliberate manner helps in doing away with congestion in the provision of
healthcare and also in eradicating any unabsolutely operations being performed. This
not only utilizes resources efficiently but also it improves patient satisfaction because its
delivers care to patient at right time with proper management and protocols. In
summary, the main notion expressed in the present paper is that, forming and adhering
to the guidelines and protocols as the framework of clinical practice is critical for
providing safe, efficient, and high-quality healthcare services.
3. Facilitating Patient Education and Shared Decision-Making
Professionals act as informers ensuring client gets accurate knowledge that can help
them in decision making for or about their health. Clinicians teach patients about their
condition through diagnosis, treatment, along with related risks and benefits; meaning
that patients participate in decision-making via knowledge based on verified information
and evidence. This encourages the notion of patients as partners rather than passive
receivers of healthcare, building trust with medical practitioners. However, patient
education promotes the understanding of EBPs by improving patient’s health literacy
thus helping the latter to comprehend why the former recommended certain treatment
regimens and get more involved in the management of their conditions. Knowledge is
power and that patient who understands what doctor has to offer, has every right to
explain the kind of treatment he/she wants so that the recommended treatment suits
his/her personal needs and perception. Finally, engaging the patient in the process of
decision making rises the concept of decisional self-efficacy, augments treatment
compliance, patient satisfaction, and ultimately, the health status. Through the use of
the EBPC in clinical practice, patients are also assisted to become more involved in the
process of decision-making and care.
4. Optimizing Resource Allocation and Cost-Effectiveness
Applying research findings in the delivery of healthcare services does not only improve
the quality of services be it through diagnosis, treatment or even prevention and
incidences of complications but also increases efficiency in the utilization of available
resources and reduced costs. Evidence-based interventions need to demonstrate
efficacy as part of managing population health, thereby eliminating the need for various
tests, procedures, or treatments in the absence of correlative scientific backing. The
guiding principle of the criterion is that by supporting the healthcare providers, quality
care is delivered at the shortest possible time and cost through the reduction of waste
and non-value activities in the overall health expenditure. Also, what is referred to as
evidence-based decision making, can assist organizations in prioritizing resource use
such that funds are directed to areas guaranteeing the greatest clinical impact for the
most reasonable cost per quality adjusted life year gained. The foresighted approach
also helps in resource savings as well as improving the general performance of the
various healthcare facilities. Through directing assets in ways that advance proven
practices in healthcare, it is possible that healthcare indexes will improve while
simultaneously achieving more with healthcare investment monies.
5. Advancing Research and Continuous Quality Improvement
The use of evidence in practice enhances Patient care, moreover provides direction on
the research gaps and subsequent focusing of attention on an area. Therefore,
clinicians, who resolve to assimilate new knowledge and synthesize it with existing
research, afford a critical role of charting the path toward future research activities.
These are the limitations since some areas must be assigned, indicating that the
evidence is insufficient or lacking, and this will help researchers apply the right tactics to
acquire such evidence. It increases the quality satisfaction feedback loop in health care
thereby pushing for more innovation and enhancement of the systems. Furthermore, by
continuing to update one’s knowledge base by regularly reviewing scientific findings and
engaging in research-related dissemination activities, clinicians are able to foster the
spirit of continuing education and training among practitioners in their respective
domains. This commitment to the evidence-based procedure ensures that health care
delivery is being enhanced in light of available evidence; this translates to better health
care delivery to patients and, therefore, an improvement in overall health outcomes.
Conclusion
Expanded use of healthcare information technology has been an essential tool for high
quality evidence based healthcare to develop the best approach to assessing evidence
for its practice. Clinicians are then able to gain vast amounts of knowledge when it
comes to various aspects of medicine, by using different systematic approaches
involving systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials, observational data, and
clinical practice guidelines. However, not all evidence is accurate and substantial
evidence, and the right tactics to employ in judging the applicability of the evidence is
necessary. It is suggested to use study quality, relevance, and preference of the patient
to filter out unsustainable evidence that are arguably unfeasible, irrelevant, or
paradoxical to a specific patient scenario. In fact, the effects of EB, regarding the
formations of clinical judgement, protocols and procedures, patient information and
teaching, and regarding the processes of priority setting for resource and maintaining
quality improvement activities, can hardly be overemphasized. According to the nature
of this paper, this complex phenomenon is understood as the ability to develop and
improve patient care based on up-to-date knowledge and the best contemporary
practices. Finally, as the world of practice changes for the better, it is imperative that the
barter for explicit and robust standards of appraisal and implementation of evidence
remains unbroken. By working together with clinicians, researchers and patient in a
concerted manner for the implementation of evidence based practices in the system,
there is hope towards future of health care: the structure should be marked by the spirit
of high performance creativity and patinet centeredness.