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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Wilson W. S. Tam, Kenneth K. H. Lo, Parames Khalechelvam, Joey Seah, Shawn Y. S. Goh
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