Abstract
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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
