社论：在《高级护理杂志》上发表文献综述的未来侧向

g on experience or tradition. In addition to intervention reviews, other types of reviews including diagnostic test accuracy and prognosis reviews are now published.

When the Cochrane Collaboration was established in 1993, methods for doing other forms of literature reviews, for example of qualitative studies, were also under development but were in their infancy. For example, Noblit and Hare published their text for the synthesis of qualitative studies in 1988. This early method for synthesizing qualitative methods was followed by other approaches, for example Walsh and Downe in 2005 and Thomas and Harden in 2008. At around this time, Whittemore and Knalf published their well-known approach to the synthesis of different types of research and non-research papers, using an integrative review (Whittemore Company Knafl, 2005). These published approaches to doing a literature review reflect just a few methods that are available for those doing a literature review, which has a broader scope that identifying effective treatments or interventions.

The benefit of developing methods for doing a literature review for questions that fall outside the remit of the traditional systematic review is widely acknowledged as this brings rigour to a method that was previously undefined and often categorized, somewhat vaguely as a ‘narrative review’ (Greenhalgh, 2014). However it is also well documented that methods for doing a review have proliferated in recent times (Aveyard Company Bradbury-Jones, 2019; Booth et al., 2012). There are many different names of reviews—Aveyard and Bradbury-Jones identified in excess of 35 different names used in published papers to describe a review—though it is not clear how different these methods really are in practice. Furthermore, stated methods for doing a review are not always adhered to in published literature reviews (Aveyard Company Bradbury-Jones, 2019), and reviews are sometimes given alternative names that do not seem to correspond to an existing method (Aveyard Company Bradbury-Jones, 2019). In addition, the term ‘systematic’ is often applied to a review name, presumably to indicate rigour, which can lead to confusion as it is not yet clear whether the term ‘systematic’ is one that is (or should be) synonymous with a literature review with meta-analysis or whether it should be used as an umbrella term to describe any review which has been undertaken in a systematic way. There is currently no clear consensus on this—there is also no right or wrong—but the inconsistent use of the term in different contexts is potentially confusing for readers who might wonder how a ‘systematic integrative review’ differs from an ‘integrative review.’

Aveyard and Bradbury-Jones (2019) called for clarity and consolidation in the methods used by researchers when doing a literature review. It was felt that the many different names and approaches to doing a review is potentially confusing for both readers and authors of reviews. This is especially so when a review was given a new name which did not seem to correspond to an existing approach and where the methods used were not clearly described. Adherence to a published method for doing a literature review was advocated to ensure that authors build on and consolidate existing methods rather than develop further approaches which might further complicate the field. Detailed adherence was also recommended to ensure that those doing a review attend to each aspect of the review and provide detail to demonstrate rigour. Yet in making such recommendations, we also need to be mindful of the need to be responsive to new methods for doing a literature review, where these are justified and which should not be precluded by rigid adherence to pre-specified methods.

The use of publishing guidelines raises important questions. Currently on the EQUATOR -network website (), there is reference to publishing guidelines which authors are generally required to adhere to prior to publication. These include the updated PRISMA guidelines (Page et al., 2021) for systematic reviews with meta-analysis and mixed methods review and the ENTREQ guidelines (Tong et al., 2012) for qualitative reviews. However due to the many different types of literature reviews, there is not an associated publishing guideline for every type of literature review. Therefore, it is not currently possible to require that all those doing a literature review adhere to an existing publication guideline as this risks the shoehorning some methods inappropriately into guidelines that may not be applicable. Both authors and editors need to be mindful of this. Therefore, the universal recourse to a publishing guideline is not necessarily a practical option. Whether existing guidelines, which are specific to certain review types, could be broadened to encompass a wider range of review types is a topic currently under discussion (Aveyard et al., 2021).

Despite the proliferation of names for doing a literature review, there are many common features of a review. All reviews have a focused research question with clear inclusion criteria and advocate a planned search strategy to demonstrate that the most relevant papers are included. Many reviews recommend a process of data extraction and critical appraisal to ensure the relevant aspects and relative merits of each paper are considered. All types of review require an appropriate level of synthesis so that new findings come from the review; often these findings should reflect a new interpretation of the papers which would not be evident from the reading each paper individually and should avoid simple lists of findings (Thorn, 2017). It is at the point of synthesis that a clear divergence between different types of reviews can often be found. Those doing a systematic review with meta-analysis will undertake a numerical re-analysis of the statistics in the included papers and where this is possible, the results will be presented as a meta-analysis though it should be noted that this is not always possible. Those doing an analysis involving the interpretation of the findings of different papers will present their results narratively.

At the Journal of Advanced Nursing, we are committed to the publication of well-conducted literature reviews. We welcome reviews that adhere to an established published method which is clearly referenced rather than review types where the method is unclear. Where there is the need for a new type of review, this should be clearly indicated in the paper and an explicit deion of the method should be given. All reviewers should provide a clear and transparent account of the method used to do their review and any deviation from the published method should be explained. This should include a search strategy following clearly stated inclusion criteria, methods for data extraction and critical appraisal of the included papers. The approach to data analysis should be fully explained and should be in accordance with the method used to guide the review. We expect adherence to publication guidelines where this is appropriate and will happily discuss with authors where this is not the case. We also welcome contributions that develop the discussion surrounding doing a literature review and the complexities therein. We recognize that this is a complex area and it is one that with our authors, editors and readers we look forward to engaging with in further debate so that we move the science of doing a literature review forward.

全文翻译（一览表）

近年来，史籍早先已成为一种更不可忽视的研究者极为一定，因为都有与特定主轴系统性的所有研究者的综合普遍性需求变得更不可忽视。其原因已给予极佳的详细描述；护士和卫生保健专业管理人员依靠研究者来都有循证眼科。在许多教育领域，虽然不是全部，但我们很幸运仅有大量可以为出发点都有信息的确凿证据。长期以来，人们视之为忙碌的各个领域阅读与其出发点系统性的每篇学术文章是实际上的；事实上，有些人试图计算这所需在此之前，并显然这样的任务与日常临时工不相容（Fraser Company Dunstan, 2010）。此外，任何一篇学术文章都只都有了一个拼图，不可忽视的是要看到研究者的全貌，而不是显然依靠一张。这就是为什么先入行时很差的史籍早先对于技术开发基于确凿证据的眼科新方法如此不可忽视的原因。

先入行时史籍早先有任何有所不同的新方法。最早熟的新方法之一是由 Cochrane Collaboration 技术开发的该系统评分和汇聚深入研究的原始新方法（Higgins et al., 2022）。他们先入行时该系统回顾和汇聚深入研究的新方法被相比较接受为对揭示“什么有效？”的研究者先入行时回顾的玉石常规，即相符介入或抑制剂 A 究竟优于介入或抑制剂 B。作为这些早先解决办法的中长期，这些 Cochrane Collaboration 早先主要还都有随机对照检验。Cochrane Collaboration 早先上会被誉为早先最伟大的研制出之一，因为它们回顾了有关眼科治疗或介入有效普遍性的确凿证据，使我们很难根据经验确凿证据的回顾都有最佳眼科，而不是缺少经验或传统。除了介入审议除此以外，现在还公开发表了其他极为一定的审议，都有病症测试可靠普遍性和临床表现审议。

当 Cochrane Collaboration 于 1993 年更名时，先入行时其他形式的史籍早先的新方法，例如指为研究者，也正在技术开发中的，但还东南面赶上阶段。例如，Noblit 和 Hare 在1988 年刊登了他们的指为研究者综合普遍性句法。这种应用于综合普遍性指为新方法的一时期新方法被其他新方法采用，例如 2005 年的 Walsh 和 Downe 以及2008 年的 Thomas 和 Harden 。大约在这个时候，Whittemore 和 Knaf 刊登了他们著名的新方法来综合普遍性有所不同极为一定的研究者和非研究者文章，采用综合普遍性华盛顿邮报 (Whittemore Company Knafl, 2005）。这些已刊登的史籍早先新方法仅总结了除此以外史籍早先者采用的几种新方法，其全域更广，可以相符有效的治疗或介入措施。

技术开发新方法对传统该系统评分全域除此以外的解决办法先入行时史籍早先的好处已给予相比较认可，因为这为以前未定义且不时分类的新方法带来了严格普遍性，看似模糊地称之为“述说普遍性早先”（Greenhalgh , 2014 年）。然而，也有据可查的是，在在先入行时审议的新方法激增（Aveyard Company Bradbury-Jones, 2019 ; Booth et al., 2012）。华盛顿邮报有许多有所不同的英文名称——Aveyard 和 Bradbury-Jones 在已刊登的文章中的相符了超过 35 个有所不同的英文名称来详细描述华盛顿邮报——尽管现今尚能不确切这些新方法在出发点中的的实际差异有多大。此外，已刊登的史籍早先（Aveyard Company Bradbury-Jones, 2019）极为只不过遵循所述的早先新方法，并且有时都会给早先彰显显然与这两项新方法不对可不的替代英文名称（Aveyard Company Bradbury-Jones , 2019）。此外，“该持续普遍性”一词上会应用于华盛顿邮报英文名称，大概是为了透露严肃，这也许都会随之而来联想，因为尚能不确切“该持续普遍性”一词究竟是（或可不当）与史籍早先和汇聚深入研究，或者它究竟可不当作为一个概括普遍性用语来详细描述任何以该系统方式先入行时的早先。现今对此无法恰当的共识——也无法到底之分——但该用语在有所不同上下文中的的不完全一致采用也许都会让听众感到苦恼，他们也许想知道“该系统综合普遍性评分”与“综合普遍性评分”有何有所不同。

Aveyard 和 Bradbury-Jones（2019 年）) 要求研究者管理人员在先入行时史籍早先时采用的新方法要清晰和统一。人们认为，先入行时华盛顿邮报的许多有所不同英文名称和新方法也许都会使华盛顿邮报的听众和创作者感到苦恼。当华盛顿邮报被彰显一个显然与这两项新方法不对可不的新英文名称并且所采用的新方法无法恰当详细描述时，相比较如此。倡导者坚持已刊登的史籍早先新方法，以必要创作者建立关系和确立这两项新方法，而不是技术开发也许使该教育领域大幅度变得复杂的大幅度新方法。还建言详细约束，以必要先入行时筛选的管理人员参加筛选的各个方面并都有详细信息以显然其严肃普遍性。然而在驳斥这样的建言时，

月出版须知的采用驳斥了不可忽视的解决办法。现今在 EQUATOR -network 网页 ( ) 上，有对月出版须知的参见，创作者上会在月出版前必须约束这些须知。其中的都有更新的 PRISMA 须知 (Page et al., 2021 )，应用于通过汇聚深入研究和混合新方法先入行时该系统评分，以及 ENTREQ 须知 (Tong et al., 2012 )) 先入行时指为审议。然而，由于史籍早先的极为一定很多，因此并无法针对每种史籍早先的系统性月出版须知。因此，现今不也许要求所有先入行时史籍早先的人都约束这两项的月出版须知，因为这有也许将某些新方法不适当地硬塞先入也许不适用的须知中的。创作者和校对都所需忽略这一点。因此，普遍求助于月出版须知不一定是一种实用的选择。究竟可以扩大特定于某些审议极为一定的这两项须知以还都有更相比较的审议极为一定是当前正在争论的主轴（Aveyard 等人， 2021 年）。

尽管先入行时史籍早先的英文名称激增，但早先有许多共同特征。所有华盛顿邮报都有一个具有恰当归入常规的中长期研究者解决办法，并倡导者有计划的查找策略以显然还都有最系统性的文章。许多华盛顿邮报推荐了数据库提炼出和政治普遍性评核的现实生活，以必要考量每篇文章的系统性方面和比较优点。所有极为一定的审议都所需适当的综合普遍性水平，以便从审议中的产生新的忽略到；上会，这些忽略到可不当总结对文章的新详述了，这在实质上阅读每篇文章时极为微小，并且可不当可能会简单的忽略到表列出（Thorn， 2017）。正是在综合普遍性点上，上会可以忽略到有所不同极为一定的华盛顿邮报彼此间存在微小的差异。那些通过汇聚深入研究先入行时该系统审议的人将对所还都有文章中的的统计数据库先入行时数值重新深入研究，并且在也许的情况，结果将作为汇聚深入研究呈现，尽管可不当忽略这极为只不过也许的. 那些先入行时涉及详述了有所不同文章结果的深入研究的人将述说他们的结果。

在高级别眼科周报，我们着力月出版先入行时很差的史籍早先。我们青睐遵循恰当引用的既定已公开发表新方法的华盛顿邮报，而不是新方法不恰当的华盛顿邮报极为一定。如果所需新的审议极为一定，可不在文章中的恰当指出，并恰当详述新方法。所有审稿人都可不确切、紫色地详述审稿新方法，并可不详述了与已公开发表新方法的任何偏差。这可不都有遵循恰当规定的归入常规、数据库提炼出新方法和对归入文章的政治普遍性评核的查找策略。可不充分详述了数据库深入研究的新方法，并可不与应用于指导审议的新方法完全一致。我们愿意在适当的情况约束月出版须知，并在不适于的情况很理应与创作者争论。我们也青睐围绕史籍早先及其复杂普遍性展开争论的贡献。我们忽略到这是一个复杂的教育领域，我们期望与我们的创作者、校对和听众独自一人参与大幅度的辩论，以便我们推动史籍早先科学向前转型。

原文链接：

THE

END

本文转载自其他网页，不代表身体健康界论述和见解。如有主旨和特写的著作权对此，请适时关系我们（邮箱：guikequan@hmkx.cn）

。

驻马店看白癜风哪个专科医院好
类风湿病早期的症状怎么治疗
云南白癜风治疗哪家好
艾得辛和甲氨蝶呤哪个效果好
迪根和英太青的效果一样吗