rss

Evidence-Based Nursing - Would you rather read 50,000 articles or 96?

An enormous amount of work goes on behind the scenes to make sure that Evidence-Based Nursing provides you with all the information you need. We scan over 50 journals and around 25,000 articles a year so that we can identify the most important and valid 96 research articles and publish them in the journal. This means that if you read Evidence-Based Nursing, you'll get all the important research material you need in just 4 volumes that are published throughout the year, saving you all important time to concentrate on other things.

To further emphasise the point, a study* found that you'd have to read 227 articles in the Lancet or 118 articles in the New England Journal of Medicine to get the relevant information that would be contained in 1 Evidence-Based Nursing article.

What's more, Evidence-Based Nursing includes 'Other articles noted' which includes mentions of high quality articles that were not abstracted but are still recommended reading. This means that you have a ready made list of extra reading for you to use. And all the articles are rated for clinical relevance and newsworthiness so you'll be able to quickly and clearly see how relevant the article will be to you, again, saving you time.

So for time-saving, distilled research information; make sure you subscribe to Evidence-Based Nursing. Unless you'd rather do a lot more reading...

See the Evidence-Based Nursing 2013 statistics for the screening and selection results here.

*'What do evidence-based secondary journals tell us about the publication of clinically important articles in primary healthcare journals?'; Kathleen Ann McKibbon, Nancy L Wilczynski and Robert Brian Haynes, Sept 2004. Available at BioMed Central. [Open access]

EBN: Criteria for Selection of Articles

The long list selection is based on the title and abstract, not on the full text of the article, and therefore not all criteria can be used for all records being appraised. In situations where the abstract does not allow a judgement to be made for all criteria, a pragmatic decision is made based on the maximum number of criteria available through the abstract.

Basic criteria

  • Original research or review articles in English
  • Quantitative and/or qualitative studies
  • Addresses a topic of importance to nursing
  • Analysis of data consistent with the study question

Cohort study

  • Purpose of the study clearly identified
  • The cohort is representative of a defined population
  • Subjects were classified into exposure groups using the same procedure
  • The outcome measurement methods were similar for the different groups.
  • The study took account of confounding factors in design and/or analysis
  • Summary of results included

Cross-sectional study
Diagnostic studies:

  • Purpose of study clearly identified
  • The test was evaluated in a representative spectrum of patients
  • The gold-standard / reference standard was reported regardless of the study test result
  • There was independent, blind comparison between the studied test and an appropriate reference ('gold') standard
  • Summary of results included

Survey

  • Purpose of study clearly identified
  • Survey conducted in a defined population
  • Response rate was reported
  • summary of results included
Health economics
  • Purpose of study clearly identified
  • The study or report described the patient population fully
  • The study specified the source of costs and benefit data.
  • The study specified the perspective and time horizon for costs
  • The study specified the methods used to combine the costs and benefit information.
  • Summary of results included

Case study

  • Purpose of study clearly identified
  • Elements of the case study defined: phenomenon (or case), the actors and the setting(s)
  • Information about data collection methods and tools provided
  • Information about the methods of data analysis provided
  • Summary of results included
Delphi study

Observational study

Action research

Randomised controlled trial

Quantitative study - other

Systematic review

Systematic review with meta-analysis - in addition to the above criteria for systematic reviews:

Qualitative studies

Mixed methods studies

 

    • Purpose of study clearly identified
    • Participants identified
    • Number of rounds undertaken stated
    • Information about data collection methods and tools provided
    • Information about the methods of data analysis provided
    • Summary of results included
    • Purpose of study clearly identified
    • Identifies whether participant or non-participant observation
    • Setting clearly identified
    • Participants identified
    • Information about data collection methods and tools provided
    • Information about the methods of data analysis provided
    • Summary of results included
    • Theoretical orientation clear (technical, practical, emancipatory)
    • Purpose defined (personal, professional, political)
    • Type of reflection clear (autobiographical, collaborative, communal
    • Purpose, participants, and setting of the study are clearly defined
    • Methods are clearly outlined
    • Information about the procedure followed to undertake the study is provided including details about how randomisation took place.
    • Information about data collection methods and tools provided
    • Information about the methods of data analysis provided
    • Summary of results included
    • Purpose, participants, and setting of the study are defined
    • Methods are clearly outlined
    • Information about the procedure followed to undertake the study is provided
    • Information about data collection methods and tools provided
    • Information about the methods of data analysis provided
    • Summary of results included
    • clearly stated objectives of the systematic review
    • pre-defined eligibility criteria for study inclusion
    • an explicit, reproducible methodology
    • a systematic search strategy that attempts to identify all studies that would meet the eligibility criteria
    • an assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies (e.g., assessment of risk of bias)
    • A systematic presentation and synthesis of the characteristics and findings of the included studies
    • analysis strategy addresses the stated objectives of the review
    • meta-analysis is appropriate
    • statistical heterogeneity has been identified or quantified
    • clinical and methodological heterogeneity have been assessed
    • description of how missing data were handled
    • publication and/or reporting biases were reported

    • The design chosen is appropriate to the aims
    • The content reflects the perspective of the participants
    • Clear description of participants
    • Analysis is described and appropriate
    • Conclusions reached are substantiated by the data
    • The design chosen is appropriate to the aims
    • The content reflects the perspective of the participants
    • Clear description of participants
    • Analysis is described and appropriate
    • Methods for combining data described
    • Conclusions reached are substantiated by the data

 

Free Sample

This recent issue is free to all users to allow everyone the opportunity to see the full scope and typical content of EBN.
View free sample issue >>

EBN Journal Chat

The EBN Journal Chat offers readers the opportunity to participate in discussion about research articles and commentaries from Evidence Based Nursing (EBN).

How to participate >>

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.