A Bibliometric Analysis of Review Types Published in the Nursing Scientific Literature.

ANS Adv Nurs Sci

Adult Health Department, West Virginia University, Morgantown (Dr Carter-Templeton); Center for Research Data and Digital Scholarship, University Libraries, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder (Ms Wrigley); Maine Desk LLC, Portland (Dr Nicoll); Dwight Schar College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Ashland University, Ashland, Ohio (Dr Owens); Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, North Carolina (Dr Oermann); and Duke University Medical Center Library, Durham, North Carolina (Ms Ledbetter).

Published: February 2023

Reviews in the nursing scientific literature have steadily expanded in scope and range. This has resulted in a variety of terms used to describe these reports found in bibliographic databases, creating confusion. This study investigated the status of reviews in the published nursing literature, including: (1) number of reviews; (2) conventions related to naming and description; (3) publication location; and (4) areas of clarity and inconsistency. Eighty-five percent of reviews (n = 5893) included in this study adhered to an identified review strategy, complete with a clear approach. The remainder (n = 981, 15%) did not. Authors of reviews must follow the identified protocol for their review type and share all relevant information including standards and rigor. Editors and peer reviewers need to possess up-to-date knowledge on methodologies associated with specific review types.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ANS.0000000000000424DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

review types
8
published nursing
8
nursing scientific
8
scientific literature
8
reviews
5
bibliometric analysis
4
review
4
analysis review
4
types published
4
literature reviews
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!