The Joanna Briggs Institute approach for systematic reviews
Open accessAbstract
licenças disponíveis.É recomendada para maximizar a disseminação e uso dos materiais licenciados.
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
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The scoping review was conducted following PRISMA-ScR and Joanna Briggs Institute guidance.
“A scoping review was conducted following PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) and Joanna Briggs Institute guidance.”
From User-Centered Design for Digital Patient-Navigation Tools in Oncology: Scoping Review (2026) · cites this paper as [15]
The main text (page unavailable) says JBI provides formal guidance for review types and recommends JBI methodology for systematic reviews, supporting the reference to JBI guidance. It mentions a scoping review only as an example of a review it considers rudimentary; it does not discuss PRISMA-ScR or establish that the citing authors’ scoping review followed either framework. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- [1]Negri EC Mazzo A Martins JCA Pereira GAJ Almeida R Pedersoli CE Clinical simulation with dramatization gains perceived by students and health professionals. Rev. Latino-Am Enfermagem 2017 25 e2916 10.1590/1518-8345.1807.2916 PMC5626175 28793125 · DOI
- [2]Hopia H Latvala E Liimatainen L Reviewing the methodology of an integrative review Scand J Caring Sci 2016 30 4 662 669 10.1111/scs.12327 27074869 · DOI · Paper page
- [3]Institute TJB Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual: 2014 Edition. 2014 Adelaide Joanna Briggs Institute
- [4]Pearson A Wiechula R Court A Lockwood C The JBI model of evidence-based healthcare Int J Evid Based Healthc 2005 3 8 207 215 10.1111/j.1479-6988.2005.00026.x 21631749 · DOI · Paper page
- [5]Aromataris E Pearson A The systematic review an overview Am J Nurs 2014 114 3 53 58 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000444496.24228.2c 24572533 · DOI · Paper page
- [6]Munn Z Stern C Aromatraris E Lockwood, Jordan Z What kind of systematic review should conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences BMC Med Res Methodol 2018 18 1 5 5 10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4 29316881 PMC5761190 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Galanis, P., Vraka, I., Fragkou, D., Bilali, A., & Kaitelidou, D. (2021) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/jan.14839 · Cited by 993 · see citing works
Ehrt-Schäfer, Y., Rusmir, M., Vetter, J., Seifritz, E., Müller, M., & Kleim, B. (2023) · JMIR Mental Health · doi:10.2196/43882 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
“In accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines for conducting scoping reviews [36,37], formal quality appraisal was not incorporated into the study selection process.”
MethodFatores associados ao absenteísmo-doença de trabalhadores da saúde: revisão de escopo
Paiva, L. G., Dalmolin, G. D. L., Andolhe, R., & Dos Santos, W. M. (2020) · Avances en Enfermería · doi:10.15446/av.enferm.v38n2.79437 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Singh, A., Podder, S., Khairnar, M., & Thakkar, T. (2026) · European Journal of Dental Education · doi:10.1111/eje.70264
User-Centered Design for Digital Patient-Navigation Tools in Oncology: Scoping Review
Kheirinejad, S., White, B. M., Kheirkhah Rahimabad, P., Zink, J. A., Hashtarkhani, S., Kumsa, F. A., Rashid, R., Chinthala, L., Brett, C. L., Davis, R. L., et al. (2026) · JMIR Human Factors · doi:10.2196/87686
“This review was guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology [15] for scoping reviews and the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines (Multimedia Appendix 1) [16].”
- Authors
- Santos, W. M. D., Secoli, S. R., & Püschel, V. A. D. A.
- Affiliations
- Hospital Universitário de Santa Maria (BR)
- Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil
- Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
- Venue
- Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem
- Publisher
- FapUNIFESP (SciELO)
- Published
- 2018-11-14
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 0
- Pages
- e3074-e3074
- ISSN
- 0104-1169 (ISSN-L)
- 1518-8345
- PMC
- PMC6248737
- OpenAlex
- W2900521964
- Cited by
- 272
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 48 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 1.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- pt
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Redalyc (Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México) (submittedVersion)
- LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- 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 › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Keywords
- Joanna Briggs Institute, systematic reviews, evidence-based practice, nursing research
- MeSH terms
- Systematic Reviews as Topic, Humans, Research Design, Evidence-Based Medicine
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
