• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

Characteristics of Reviews Published in Nursing Literature: A Methodological Review.

作者信息

Toronto Coleen E, Quinn Brenna L, Remington Ruth

机构信息

School of Nursing, Curry College, Milton, Massachusetts (Dr Toronto); Solomont School of Nursing, University of Massachusetts Lowell (Dr Quinn); Department of Nursing, Framingham State University, Framingham, Massachusetts (Dr Remington).

出版信息

ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 2018 Jan/Mar;41(1):30-40. doi: 10.1097/ANS.0000000000000180.

DOI:10.1097/ANS.0000000000000180
PMID:28825935
Abstract

Integrative and systematic reviews present synthesized research. Scholars have called for increased rigor and reporting in reviews. The purpose of this methodological review was to describe the characteristics of nurse-led reviews. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines directed the review process. Many reviews did not clearly report the search strategy used and methods for data extraction and quality appraisal, indicating that there has not been an increase in rigor. Authors of reviews are encouraged to report sufficient methodological details, so peer reviewers and consumers can determine whether the methods were rigorous enough to contribute meaningful results.

摘要

相似文献

1
Characteristics of Reviews Published in Nursing Literature: A Methodological Review.
ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 2018 Jan/Mar;41(1):30-40. doi: 10.1097/ANS.0000000000000180.
2
Epidemiology, quality, and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nursing interventions published in Chinese journals.发表于中文期刊的护理干预系统评价和Meta分析的流行病学、质量及报告特征
Nurs Outlook. 2015 Jul-Aug;63(4):446-455.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2014.11.020. Epub 2014 Dec 4.
3
Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews in the orthopaedic literature.骨科文献中系统评价的报告和方法学质量。
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 Jun 5;95(11):e771-7. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.L.00597.
4
Eligibility criteria in systematic reviews: A methodological review.系统评价中的纳入标准:方法学综述。
Int J Nurs Stud. 2015 Jul;52(7):1269-76. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.02.002. Epub 2015 Feb 16.
5
Evaluating characteristics of PROSPERO records as predictors of eventual publication of non-Cochrane systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study protocol.评价 PROSPERO 记录特征对非 Cochrane 系统评价最终发表的预测作用:一项meta 流行病学研究方案。
Syst Rev. 2018 Mar 9;7(1):43. doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0709-6.
6
Epidemiology characteristics, reporting characteristics, and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on traditional Chinese medicine nursing interventions published in Chinese journals.中文期刊发表的关于中医护理干预的系统评价和Meta分析的流行病学特征、报告特征及方法学质量
Int J Nurs Pract. 2017 Feb;23(1). doi: 10.1111/ijn.12498. Epub 2016 Dec 21.
7
Combining evidence in nursing research: methods and implications.整合护理研究中的证据:方法与启示
Nurs Res. 2005 Jan-Feb;54(1):56-62. doi: 10.1097/00006199-200501000-00008.
8
Guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiological methodology research.报告元流行病学方法学研究的指南。
Evid Based Med. 2017 Aug;22(4):139-142. doi: 10.1136/ebmed-2017-110713. Epub 2017 Jul 12.
9
Online survey of nursing journal peer reviewers: indicators of quality in manuscripts.护理期刊同行评审员在线调查:稿件质量指标
West J Nurs Res. 2011 Jun;33(4):506-21. doi: 10.1177/0193945910385715. Epub 2010 Nov 15.
10
The methodological quality of systematic reviews published in high-impact nursing journals: a review of the literature.发表于高影响力护理期刊的系统评价的方法学质量:文献综述
J Clin Nurs. 2014 Feb;23(3-4):315-32. doi: 10.1111/jocn.12132. Epub 2013 Mar 13.