The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Integrative reviews of nursing research
Abstract
Integrative reviews of research are a valuable part of the process of creating and organizing a body of literature. It has been argued that integrative reviews should be held to the same standards of clarity, rigor, and replication as primary research. In this paper methods for conducting an integrative review are discussed. Seventeen reviews from nursing journals were examined and compared with a proposed set of criteria for reviews. The results indicated that the majority of integrative reviews in nursing fell short of primary research standards. Guidelines for conducting more rigorous reviews are presented.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research
GLASS, G. V. (1976) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x005010003 · Cited by 4,890
Meta-analysis in social research
(1982) · Evaluation and Program Planning · doi:10.1016/0149-7189(82)90011-8 · Cited by 3,853
Interpersonal expectancy effects: the first 345 studies
Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1978) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00075506 · Cited by 1,158
Scientific Guidelines for Conducting Integrative Research Reviews
Cooper, H. M. (1982) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.2307/1170314 · Cited by 784
Methods for Integrative Reviews
Jackson, G. B. (1980) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.2307/1170440 · Cited by 484
Accumulating Evidence: Procedures for Resolving Contradictions among Different Research Studies
Light, R., & Smith, P. (1971) · Harvard Educational Review · doi:10.17763/haer.41.4.437714870334w144 · Cited by 445
DEVINE, E. C., & COOK, T. D. (1983) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-198309000-00003 · Cited by 241
Quantitative methods for literature reviews
Green, B. F., & Hall, J. A. (1984) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.35.020184.000345 · Cited by 213
Jersild, A. T., & Holmes, F. B. (2007) · Cited by 170
Use of Vignettes to Elicit Responses toward Broad Concepts
Flaskerud, J. H. (1979) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-197907000-00004 · Cited by 92
Cited by
The integrative review: updated methodology
Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x · Cited by 10,241
Revisão integrativa: Método de pesquisa para a incorporação de evidências na saúde e na enfermagem
Mendes, K. D. S., Silveira, R. C. D. C. P., & Galvão, C. M. (2008) · Texto & Contexto - Enfermagem · doi:10.1590/s0104-07072008000400018 · Cited by 4,375
Integrative review: what is it? How to do it?
Souza, M. T. D., Silva, M. D. D., & Carvalho, R. D. (2010) · Einstein (São Paulo) · doi:10.1590/s1679-45082010rw1134 · Cited by 3,883
Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies
Deeks, J., Dinnes, J., D'Amico, R., Sowden, A., Sakarovitch, C., Song, F., Petticrew, M., & Altman, D. (2003) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta7270 · Cited by 2,907
Qualitative metasynthesis: Issues and techniques
Sandelowski, M., Docherty, S., & Emden, C. (1997) · Research in Nursing & Health · doi:10.1002/(sici)1098-240x(199708)20:4<365::aid-nur9>3.0.co;2-e · Cited by 1,046
Metadata
- Authors
- Ganong, L. H.
- Venue
- Research in Nursing & Health
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1987-02
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-11
- ISSN
- 0160-6891 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-240X
- OpenAlex
- W1970431301
- Cited by
- 1,296
- References
- 19
- FWCI
- 2.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Integrative reviews of nursing research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/nur.4770100103
- The paper
- Ganong, L. H. (1987). Integrative reviews of nursing research. Research in Nursing & Health. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770100103
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
