期刊文献+

2015-2019年我国护理核心期刊中系统评价类研究的范围综述 被引量:1

Studies of Systematic Reviews published in Chinese nursing core journals from 2015 to 2019: a Scoping Review
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的:描述我国护理核心期刊2015-2019年发表系统评价类研究的种类、研究方法和文献报告进展。方法:使用JBI范围综述方法对文献进行描述性分析。结果:共纳入740篇文献,包括量性研究系统评价、质性研究系统评价、系统评价再评价和范围综述。68.2%的文献完全呈现了结构化研究问题。平均每篇文献检索证据资源(7.29±2.15)个。检索频率最高的中英文证据资源分别是CNKI(95.5%)和PubMed/Medline(92.8%)。只有19.1%检索了灰色文献。Cochrane风险偏倚评估工具和JBI系列工具在质量评价工具中的使用频率最高。在论文撰写中有较多信息缺失或记录不详。结论:我国护理核心期刊上发表的系统评价类研究数量稳步增加,研究方法更加丰富。但是研究的方法学质量和报告学质量亟需提高,以提高系统评价证据质量,为循证护理事业发展助力。 Objective: To explore the progress of the kinds, methodological quality and reporting quality of Systematic Reviews published in Chinese nursing core journals from 2015 to 2019. Methods: The JBI approach to the conduct of scoping reviews was followed. Results: Totally 740 studies were included. They were quantitative Systematic Reviews, qualitative Systematic Reviews, umbrella reviews, and Scoping Reviews. Totally 68.2% articles formulated research questions with all key elements. The average number of databases searched was 7.29±2.15 per article. The most popular databases searched were CNKI(95.5%) in Chinese and PubMed/Medline(92.8%) in English. Only 19.1% studies searched grey literature. The most popular critical appraisal tool was the Cochrane tool, followed by the JBI tools. More information should be provided in the report. Conclusion: The amount of Systematic Reviews published in Chinese nursing core journals increased steadily from 2015 to 2019. A variety of Systematic Reviews were conducted. The methodological quality and reporting quality of Systematic Reviews should be improved greatly, so that stronger evidences could be provided to enhance evidence-based nursing in China.
作者 庞冬 张秋雯 金三丽 李世盘 孙丽娜 PANG Dong;ZHANG Qiuwen;JIN Sanli;LI Shipan;SUN Lina(Peking University School of Nursing,Peking University Health Science Center for Evidence-Based Nursing:A Joanna Briggs Institute Affiliated Group,Beijing,100191,China)
出处 《中国护理管理》 CSCD 北大核心 2020年第4期496-501,共6页 Chinese Nursing Management
关键词 系统评价 循证护理 范围综述 Systematic Review evidence-based nursing Scoping Review
  • 相关文献

参考文献2

二级参考文献16

  • 1Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.5 [ M ]. The Cochrane Library, Issue 3,John Wi- ley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, UK,2005.
  • 2Jadad AR, Cook D J, Jones A, et al. Methodology and Reports of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses: a Comparison of Cochrane Reviews with Articles Published in Paper-basod Journals [ J ]. JA- MA,1998,280(3) :278-280.
  • 3Colder S, Loke Y, MeIntosh HM. Poor Reporting and Inadequate Searches were Apparent in Systematic Reviews of Adverse Effects [ J]. J Clin Epidemio1,2008,61 (5) :440-448.
  • 4Hu J, Zhang JH, ghao W, et al. Coehrane Systematic Reviews d Chi- nese Herbal Medicines: An Overview[J]. PLoS ONE. 2011.6:1-6.
  • 5Brazier H. Systematic Reviews Depend on Systematic Literature Searches [ C ]. The Sixth European Conference of Medical and Health Libraries without Limits: Changing Needs--Changing Roles. Utrecht: EAHIL/AEBIS, 1998.
  • 6Brazier H. Poorly Executed and Inadequately Documented? An A- nalysis of the Literature Searches on which Systematic Reviews are based [ C ]. the 2nd Symposium on Systematic Reviews : Beyond the Basics; Oxford; 1999.
  • 7李静,李幼平.不断完善与发展的Cochrane系统评价[J].中国循证医学杂志,2008,8(9):742-743. 被引量:195
  • 8贾文琴,杨克虎,田金徽,张朋,李伦,马彬,刘雅莉.Cochrane系统评价发表状况调查[J].中国循证医学杂志,2009,9(6):635-639. 被引量:18
  • 9杨智荣,詹思延.PROSPERO:为非Cochrane系统评价全新打造的注册平台[J].中华医学杂志,2012,92(6):422-425. 被引量:12
  • 10孙福红,魏水易,许自明,孙晓红.随机对照试验Meta分析的质量评价[J].药物流行病学杂志,2002,11(1):31-36. 被引量:33

共引文献26

同被引文献5

引证文献1

二级引证文献6

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部