Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0432-3
Title: Is the information of systematic reviews published in nursing journals up-to-date? a cross-sectional study
Authors: Tam, W.W.S 
Lo, K.K.H
Khalechelvam, P
Seah, J
Goh, S.Y.S 
Keywords: cross-sectional study
economics
evidence based nursing
human
literature
trends
Cross-Sectional Studies
Evidence-Based Nursing
Humans
Review Literature as Topic
Issue Date: 2017
Citation: Tam, W.W.S, Lo, K.K.H, Khalechelvam, P, Seah, J, Goh, S.Y.S (2017). Is the information of systematic reviews published in nursing journals up-to-date? a cross-sectional study. BMC Medical Research Methodology 17 (1) : 151. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0432-3
Rights: Attribution 4.0 International
Abstract: Background: An up-to-date systematic review is important for researchers to decide whether to embark on new research or continue supporting ongoing studies. The aim of this study is to examine the time taken between the last search, submission, acceptance and publication dates of systematic reviews published in nursing journals. Methods: Nursing journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports were first identified. Thereafter, systematic reviews published in these journals in 2014 were extracted from three databases. The quality of the systematic reviews were evaluated by the AMSTAR. The last search, submission, acceptance, online publication, full publication dates and other characteristics of the systematic reviews were recorded. The time taken between the five dates was then computed. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the time differences; non-parametric statistics were used to examine the association between the time taken from the last search and full publication alongside other potential factors, including the funding support, submission during holiday periods, number of records retrieved from database, inclusion of meta-analysis, and quality of the review. Results: A total of 107 nursing journals were included in this study, from which 1070 articles were identified through the database search. After screening for eligibility, 202 systematic reviews were included in the analysis. The quality of these reviews was low with the median score of 3 out of 11. A total of 172 (85.1%), 72 (35.6%), 153 (75.7%) and 149 (73.8%) systematic reviews provided their last search, submission, acceptance and online published dates respectively. The median numbers of days taken from the last search to acceptance and to full publication were, respectively, 393 (IQR: 212-609) and 669 (427-915) whereas that from submission to full publication was 365 (243-486). Moreover, the median number of days from the last search to submission and from submission to online publication were 167.5 (53.5-427) and 153 (92-212), respectively. No significant association were revealed between the time lag and those potential factors. Conclusion: The median time from the last search to acceptance for systematic reviews published in nursing journals was 393 days. Readers for systematic reviews are advised to check the time taken from the last search date of the reviews in order to ensure that up-to-date evidence is consulted for effective clinical decision-making. © 2017 The Author(s).
Source Title: BMC Medical Research Methodology
URI: https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/181235
ISSN: 14712288
DOI: 10.1186/s12874-017-0432-3
Rights: Attribution 4.0 International
Appears in Collections:Elements
Staff Publications

Show full item record
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormatAccess SettingsVersion 
10_1186_s12874-017-0432-3.pdf494.6 kBAdobe PDF

OPEN

NoneView/Download

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

7
checked on Jul 17, 2021

Page view(s)

57
checked on Jul 22, 2021

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons