Journals / Hemşirelikte Eğitim ve Araştırma / 2018 / Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 2

The Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews Published in Nursing Journals in Turkey

Türkiye’de Hemsirelik Dergilerinde Yayınlanan Sistematik Derlemelerin Raporlama Özellikleri

Pages
106–116
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It is recommended that nursing journal editors, peer reviewers and researchers use PRISMA guidelines to improve the reporting quality of systematic reviews.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate the reporting and methodological characteristics of systematic reviews published in Turkish nursing journals between 2000 and 2016.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The “Data Extraction Form” was prepared by the researchers in order to reveal the characteristics of reviews, and the 27- item PRISMA statement was used in the evaluation of the reporting properties.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It is recommended that nursing journal editors, peer reviewers and researchers use PRISMA guidelines to improve the reporting quality of systematic reviews.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2000 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate the reporting and methodological characteristics of systematic reviews published in Turkish nursing journals between 2000 and 2016. Methods: The sample of this descriptive study included all nursing journals published in Turkey. The articles were screened using the keywords “nursing,” “systematic review,” and “literature review” in the web pages of nursing journals, Turkish Medline, TUBITAK ULAKBIM DergiPark, and Google Academic. The “Data Extraction Form” was prepared by the researchers in order to reveal the characteristics of reviews, and the 27- item PRISMA statement was used in the evaluation of the reporting properties. Two researchers independently evaluated the reporting quality of the review articles. Data were evaluated using Cohen’s kappa, frequencies, mean, and standard deviation. Results: A total of 26 systematic literature reviews published in nursing journals were included in the study. The average PRISMA scores were 7.46±3.20 (min-max=1.5-13). The inter-researcher agreement was high (κ=0.813, p=0.000). The title (76.9%) and structured summary (57.7%) were the most reported areas, while methods, results, conclusion and funding sources were the least reported. Conclusion: Although the number of systematic reviews in nursing journals has increased in our country, the reporting quality of the reviews is very low. It is recommended that nursing journal editors, peer reviewers and researchers use PRISMA guidelines to improve the reporting quality of systematic reviews.

Özet

Amaç: Bu makalede, ülkemizde 2000-2016 yılları arasında hemsirelikdergilerinde yayınlanmıs sistematik derlemelerin metodolojik ve raporlamaözelliklerini incelemek amaçlanmıstır.Yöntem: Tanımlayıcı tipteki arastırmanın örneklemi Türkiye’de yayınlanantüm hemsirelik dergilerini kapsamaktadır. Makaleler hemsirelikdergilerinin web sayfaları, Türk Medline, TÜBITAK ULAKBIM Dergi-Park veri tabanları ve Google Akademik arama motorunda “hemsire”,“sistematik derleme”, “sistematik inceleme”, “literatür inceleme”, “literatürtarama” anahtar kelimeleri kullanılarak tarandı. Makale özellikleriniortaya koymak amacıyla arastırmacılar tarafından hazırlananVeri Çekme Formu, raporlama özelliklerinin degerlendirilmesinde 27maddeli PRISMA Bildirimi kullanıldı. Iki arastırmacı bagımsız olarakmakalelerin raporlama kalitesini degerlendirdi. Veriler, Cohen’s kappa,frekans, ortalama ve standart sapma kullanılarak degerlendirildi.Bulgular: Hemsirelik dergilerinde yayınlanan toplam 26 sistematikderleme/literatür inceleme çalısmaya dâhil edildi. Ortalama PRISMApuanı 7.46±3.20 (min-maks=1.5-13) bulundu. Gözlemciler arasıuyum yüksekti (κ=0.813, p=0.000). Baslık (%76.9), yapılandırılmısözet (%57.7) en iyi raporlandırılan; yöntem, sonuçlar, tartısma ve fonlanmakaynakları en yetersiz raporlandırılan bölümlerdi.Tartısma ve Sonuç: Ülkemizde hemsirelik dergilerinde sistematikderleme sayısı giderek artmakla birlikte, derlemelerin raporlama kalitelerioldukça düsüktür. Hemsirelik dergi editörlerinin, hakemlerin vearastırmacıların sistematik derlemelerde rapor kalitesini artırmak içinPRISMA kılavuzlarını kullanmaları önerilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

İNCİRKUŞ, K., NAHCIVAN, N. (2022). The Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews Published in Nursing Journals in Turkey. Hemşirelikte Eğitim ve Araştırma, Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 2, 106–116. https://ajindex.com/articles/536333

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (5)

  1. Aromataris E, Pearson A. The systematic review: An overwiew. American Journal of Nursing 2014; 114(3): 53-58. doi: 10.1097/01. NAJ.0000444496.24228.2c
  2. Dowding D, Thompson C. Measuring the quality of judgement and decision-making in nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2003; 44(1): 49-57.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02770.x 3. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 2007; 4(3): e78. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pmed.0040078 4. Liberati A, Altman GA, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: Explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009; 339: b2700. doi: 10.1136/bmj. b2700
  3. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from http://handbook-5-1. cochrane.org/ 6. Karaçam Z. Sistematik derleme metodolojisi: Sistematik derleme hazırlamak için bir rehber. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hemsirelik Yüksekokulu Elektronik Dergisi 2013; 6(1): 26-33. Available from:
  4. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6(6): e1000097. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 8. Burns N, Grove SK. The practice of nursing research: appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence. 6th ed. St. Louis, Missouri: Saunders & Elsevier; 2009. p.616-637
  5. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: Elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015; 349(jan021): g7647. Jan 2;350:g7647. Available from: https://doi. org/10.1136/bmj.g7647 10. Egger M., Davey-Smith G, O’Rourke K. Rationale, potentials, and promise of systematic reviews. In: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman D. eds. Systematic reviews in healthcare: Meta-Analysis in context. Second Ed. London: BMJ Books; 2001. p.3-19. Available from: http://eu.wiley.com/ WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-072791488X.html 11. Dreier M, Borutta B, Stahmeyer J, Krauth C, Walter U. Comparison of tools for assessing the methodological quality of primary and secondary studies in health technology