Two decades of exceptional achievements : does the evidence support nurses to favour Cochrane systematic reviews over other systematic reviews?
Chan, Raymond Javan (2012) Two decades of exceptional achievements : does the evidence support nurses to favour Cochrane systematic reviews over other systematic reviews? International Journal of Nursing Studies, 49(7), pp. 773-774.
Systematic reviews (SRs) are increasingly recognised as the standard approach in summarising health research and influence clinical nursing practice and health care decisions (Coster and Norman, 2009, Grimshaw and Russell, 1993 and Griffiths and Norman, 2005). High quality SRs should have a clearly stated set of objectives with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies; an explicit reproducible methodology; a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies that would meet the eligibility criteria; an assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies; the assessment of risk of bias; and a systematic presentation and synthesis of the characteristics of findings of the included study (Higgins and Green, 2011). Although SRs are highly regarded and are expected to be rigorous, just as other research, their quality may vary (Choi et al., 2001 and Hoving et al., 2001)...
Impact and interest:
Citation counts are sourced monthly from and citation databases.
These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.
Citations counts from theindexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.
Full-text downloads displays the total number of times this work’s files (e.g., a PDF) have been downloaded from QUT ePrints as well as the number of downloads in the previous 365 days. The count includes downloads for all files if a work has more than one.
|Item Type:||Journal Article|
|Keywords:||Evidence Based Practice, Cochrane Collaboration, Systematic Reviews|
|Subjects:||Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES (110000) > NURSING (111000) > Nursing not elsewhere classified (111099)
Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES (110000) > PUBLIC HEALTH AND HEALTH SERVICES (111700) > Public Health and Health Services not elsewhere classified (111799)
|Divisions:||Current > QUT Faculties and Divisions > Faculty of Health
Current > Institutes > Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation
Current > Schools > School of Nursing
|Copyright Owner:||Copyright 2012 Elsevier|
|Copyright Statement:||This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in International Journal of Nursing Studies. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in International Journal of Nursing Studies, [VOL 49, ISSUE 7, (2012)] DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.05.007|
|Deposited On:||08 Jul 2012 23:32|
|Last Modified:||18 Sep 2013 10:44|
Repository Staff Only: item control page