CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 459Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsHealth Sciences Research and EducationMethodologies in Health Research and Practice

Reviewing the methodology of an integrative review

Hopia, Hanna, Latvala, Eila, Liimatainen, Leena·2016·Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences
DOI 10.1111/scs.12327
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Whittemore and Knafl's updated description of methodological approach for integrative review was published in 2005. Since then, the five stages of the approach have been regularly used as a basic conceptual structure of the integrative reviews conducted by nursing researchers. However, this methodological approach is seldom examined from the perspective of how systematically and rigorously the stages are implemented in the published integrative reviews. PURPOSE: To appraise the selected integrative reviews on the basis of the methodological approach according to the five stages published by Whittemore and Knafl in 2005. DESIGN: A literature review was used in this study. CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health), PubMed, OVID (Journals@Ovid) and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for integrative reviews published between 2002 and 2014. Papers were included if they used the methodological approach described by Whittemore and Knafl, were published in English and were focused on nursing education or nursing expertise. A total of 259 integrative review publications for potential inclusion were identified. RESULTS: Ten integrative reviews fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Findings from the studies were extracted and critically examined according to the five methodological stages. The reviews assessed followed the guidelines of the stated methodology approach to different extents. The stages of literature search, data evaluation and data analysis were fairly poorly formulated and only partially implemented in the studies included in the sample. The other two stages, problem identification and presentation, followed those described in the methodological approach quite well. CONCLUSION: Increasing use of research in clinical practice is inevitable, and therefore, integrative reviews can play a greater role in developing evidence-based nursing practices. Because of this, nurse researchers should pay more attention to sound integrative nursing research to systematise the review process and make it more rigorous.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/scs.12327

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hopia, H., Latvala, E., & Liimatainen, L.
Affiliations
JAMK University of Applied Sciences (FI)
Corresponding author
Hopia, Hanna
ORCID
Hopia, Hanna
Venue
Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-04-14
Volume
30
Issue
4
Pages
662-669
ISSN
  • 0283-9318 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-6712
DOI
10.1111/scs.12327
OpenAlex
W2337279942
Cited by
459
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 80 · 2021: 84 · 2020: 50 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 7
FWCI
15.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Methodologies in Health Research and Practice
Keywords
integrative review, methodological quality, nursing research methodology, nursing education, nursing expertise, evidence-based nursing, literature searching, data evaluation, data analysis, problem identification
MeSH terms
Review Literature as Topic, Nursing Research

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