Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses

information technology, there is some cause for concern.

Hawker, Payne, Kerr, Hardey, and Powell (2002) make

the concern clear:

Both reviews and the results of primary research are now

being used as bases for health care decisions. However,

despite this expansion, the quality of literature reviews

varies widely, particularly across academic disciplines,

and the standard of some published reviews remains

poor (Evans & Kowanko, 2000). If reviews are to be considered as evidence and

seen as research in their own right, then it follows that the rigor that is expected

of primary research must also be applied to literature reviews. (pp. 1284–1285)

Consider the implications of a poorly conducted summary when contrasting

the academic and clinical settings. When literature reviews conducted for

academic papers lack precision and quality searching, the results often lead to

a lower grade. Likewise, when nurses consider decisions about EBP, a poorly

conducted literature review may negatively affect patient care.

Reviews can be conducted in a variety of ways. In an article that has become

definitive in this field, Whittemore (2005) detailed differences among the

major types of reviews. Echoing concerns of Hawker and colleagues (2002),

Whittemore also noted that the “literature search stage is a critical element to

conducting a quality research review because incomplete and biased searches

result in an inadequate database for the review and the potential for faulty

conclusions” (p. 58). To make good decisions about best practice, nurses should

familiarize themselves with the major types of reviews: narrative, integrative,

meta-analysis, and systematic.

Narrative Reviews

Narrative reviews are the most traditional type of review, thus the most familiar.

These kinds of reviews are frequently found in trade publications. Because writ-

ers judge which works to include and exclude, narrative reviews are subjective.

These reviews are often based on only the common or uncommon elements

of the various works, and writers are not particularly concerned with widely

varying research methods, designs, or settings. For example, the review of

literature section in most published articles is a traditional narrative review.

Integrative Reviews

Jackson (1980) defined an integrative review as “generalizations about sub-

stantive issues from a set of studies directly bearing on those issues” (p. 438).

Integrative reviews are scholarly papers that synthesize published studies and

articles to answer questions about phenomena of interest. They are typically

found in peer-reviewed professional publications. Ganong (1987) is credited

FYI

Different types of sources provide different

levels of quality information. It is nurses’ re-

sponsibility to be able to distinguish among

the different types of sources: primary or sec-

ondary, peer reviewed or not peer reviewed,

and scholarly, trade, or popular.

KEY TERMS

narrative reviews:

Reviews based

on common

or uncommon

elements of works

without concern for

research methods,

designs, or settings;

traditional literature

review

integrative review:

A scholarly paper

that synthesizes

published studies

to answer questions

about phenomena

of interest

100 CHAPTER 4 Finding Sources of Evidence