According to EBP guidelines, clinical practice guidelines are based on which type of research?

Clinical practice guidelines in Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) are primarily based on systematic reviews. Systematic reviews synthesize findings from multiple studies on a specific topic, providing a comprehensive overview of the current evidence. By evaluating the best available research, systematic reviews help in forming recommendations that are applicable across various clinical situations.

This method ensures that the guidelines are grounded in a higher level of evidence, which not only includes quantitative data but also critically appraises the quality of both individual studies and the body of literature as a whole. The aim is to establish recommendations that are both effective and safe for patient care, therefore enhancing the validity and reliability of the guidelines.

In contrast to systematic reviews, expert opinion may be informed by experience but lacks the rigor and comprehensive evaluation of multiple studies. Qualitative studies provide valuable insights into patient experiences but do not lend themselves to the same level of quantitative analysis necessary for forming broad clinical recommendations. Cross-sectional studies can offer useful data at a given point in time but also do not provide the depth of systematic analysis required to inform guidelines effectively.