Is the information of systematic reviews published in nursing journals up-to-date? a cross-sectional study
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...
Main Authors: | , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
BMC
2017-11-01
|
Series: | BMC Medical Research Methodology |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-017-0432-3 |
id |
doaj-eaeda7413b07414495c9956957c06830 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-eaeda7413b07414495c9956957c068302020-11-24T23:56:30ZengBMCBMC Medical Research Methodology1471-22882017-11-011711910.1186/s12874-017-0432-3Is the information of systematic reviews published in nursing journals up-to-date? a cross-sectional studyWilson W. S. Tam0Kenneth K. H. Lo1Parames Khalechelvam2Joey Seah3Shawn Y. S. Goh4Alice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, Level 2, Clinical Research Centre4/F, JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong KongAlice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, Level 2, Clinical Research CentreAlice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, Level 2, Clinical Research CentreAlice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, Level 2, Clinical Research CentreAbstract 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.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-017-0432-3Systematic reviewsQuality of reportingInformation retrievalPresentation and publication policyEvidence-based nursing |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Wilson W. S. Tam Kenneth K. H. Lo Parames Khalechelvam Joey Seah Shawn Y. S. Goh |
spellingShingle |
Wilson W. S. Tam Kenneth K. H. Lo Parames Khalechelvam Joey Seah Shawn Y. S. Goh Is the information of systematic reviews published in nursing journals up-to-date? a cross-sectional study BMC Medical Research Methodology Systematic reviews Quality of reporting Information retrieval Presentation and publication policy Evidence-based nursing |
author_facet |
Wilson W. S. Tam Kenneth K. H. Lo Parames Khalechelvam Joey Seah Shawn Y. S. Goh |
author_sort |
Wilson W. S. Tam |
title |
Is the information of systematic reviews published in nursing journals up-to-date? a cross-sectional study |
title_short |
Is the information of systematic reviews published in nursing journals up-to-date? a cross-sectional study |
title_full |
Is the information of systematic reviews published in nursing journals up-to-date? a cross-sectional study |
title_fullStr |
Is the information of systematic reviews published in nursing journals up-to-date? a cross-sectional study |
title_full_unstemmed |
Is the information of systematic reviews published in nursing journals up-to-date? a cross-sectional study |
title_sort |
is the information of systematic reviews published in nursing journals up-to-date? a cross-sectional study |
publisher |
BMC |
series |
BMC Medical Research Methodology |
issn |
1471-2288 |
publishDate |
2017-11-01 |
description |
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. |
topic |
Systematic reviews Quality of reporting Information retrieval Presentation and publication policy Evidence-based nursing |
url |
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-017-0432-3 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT wilsonwstam istheinformationofsystematicreviewspublishedinnursingjournalsuptodateacrosssectionalstudy AT kennethkhlo istheinformationofsystematicreviewspublishedinnursingjournalsuptodateacrosssectionalstudy AT parameskhalechelvam istheinformationofsystematicreviewspublishedinnursingjournalsuptodateacrosssectionalstudy AT joeyseah istheinformationofsystematicreviewspublishedinnursingjournalsuptodateacrosssectionalstudy AT shawnysgoh istheinformationofsystematicreviewspublishedinnursingjournalsuptodateacrosssectionalstudy |
_version_ |
1725458157949419520 |