Abstract
BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews of literature are increasingly important in healthcare. While reviewers are expected to follow reporting guidelines, inconsistencies may be observed in presentation of reviews, potentially detracting from the credibility of findings. Predetermined eligibility criteria are fundamental to the systematic process of reviewing, and should be given primacy in authors' reports.
METHOD: This methodological review assessed the specification and application of eligibility criteria in systematic reviews in three leading generic nursing journals.
RESULTS: While reporting guidelines were generally followed, major anomalies were revealed by this review. Over three-quarters of review papers placed eligibility criteria after description of the search strategy. Unjustified time restrictions were common, and many flowcharts omitted vital information.
CONCLUSION: Greater scrutiny of systematic reviews submitted to nursing journals would enhance the quality of reports and contribute to more robust evidence-based practice.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Number of pages | 8 |
| Journal | International Journal of Nursing Studies |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | E-pub ahead of print - 2015 |