IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v23y2014i3-4p315-332.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The methodological quality of systematic reviews published in high‐impact nursing journals: a review of the literature

Author

Listed:
  • Tarja Pölkki
  • Outi Kanste
  • Maria Kääriäinen
  • Satu Elo
  • Helvi Kyngäs

Abstract

Aims and objectives To analyse systematic review articles published in the top 10 nursing journals to determine the quality of the methods employed within them. Background Systematic review is defined as a scientific research method that synthesises high‐quality scientific knowledge on a given topic. The number of such reviews in nursing science has increased dramatically during recent years, but their methodological quality has not previously been assessed. Design A review of the literature using a narrative approach. Methods Ranked impact factor scores for nursing journals were obtained from the Journal Citation Report database of the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI Web of Knowledge). All issues from the years 2009 and 2010 of the top 10 ranked journals were included. CINAHL and MEDLINE databases were searched to locate studies using the search terms ‘systematic review’ and ‘systematic literature review’. A total of 39 eligible studies were identified. Their methodological quality was evaluated through the specific criteria of quality assessment, description of synthesis and strengths and weaknesses reported in the included studies. Results Most of the eligible systematic reviews included several different designs or types of quantitative study. The majority included a quality assessment, and a total of 17 different criteria were identified. The method of synthesis was mentioned in about half of the reviews, the most common being narrative synthesis. The weaknesses of reviews were discussed, while strengths were rarely highlighted. Conclusion The methodological quality of the systematic reviews examined varied considerably, although they were all published in nursing journals with a high‐impact factor. Relevance to clinical practice Despite the fact that systematic reviews are considered the most robust source of research evidence, they vary in methodological quality. This point is important to consider in clinical practice when applying the results to patient care.

Suggested Citation

  • Tarja Pölkki & Outi Kanste & Maria Kääriäinen & Satu Elo & Helvi Kyngäs, 2014. "The methodological quality of systematic reviews published in high‐impact nursing journals: a review of the literature," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(3-4), pages 315-332, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:23:y:2014:i:3-4:p:315-332
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.12132
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12132
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.12132?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marilyn H Oermann & Julia Shaw‐Kokot & George J Knafl & Jo Dowell, 2010. "Dissemination of research into clinical nursing literature," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(23‐24), pages 3435-3442, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Borghild Løyland & Charlotte Angelhoff & Gudrún Kristjánsdóttir & Hege Sjølie, 2020. "A systematic integrative review of parents' experience and perception of sleep when they stay overnight in the hospital together with their sick children," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5-6), pages 706-719, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wen-Yau Cathy Lin, 2021. "Effects of open access and articles-in-press mechanisms on publishing lag and first-citation speed: a case on energy and fuels journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 4841-4869, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:23:y:2014:i:3-4:p:315-332. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.