Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24412062›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of nursing studies2014

Evidence for the existing American Nurses Association-recognized standardized nursing terminologies: a systematic review.

Sevinc Tastan, Graciele C F Linch, Gail M Keenan, Janet Stifter, Dawn McKinney, Linda Fahey, Karen Dunn Lopez, Yingwei Yao, Diana J Wilkie

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of nursing studies, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. ICNPReports (MDPI) · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Developing a Subset of ICNPHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Sevinc TastanSchool of Nursing, Gulhane Military Medical Academy, Ankara, Turkey.
Graciele C F LinchDepartment of Nursing, Federal University of Health Sciences of Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Gail M KeenanDepartment of Health System Science, College of Nursing, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.
Janet StifterDepartment of Health System Science, College of Nursing, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.
Dawn McKinneyDepartment of Biobehavioral Health Science, College of Nursing, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.
Linda FaheyDepartment of Health System Science, College of Nursing, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.
Karen Dunn LopezDepartment of Health System Science, College of Nursing, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.
Yingwei YaoDepartment of Biobehavioral Health Science, College of Nursing, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.
Diana J WilkieDepartment of Biobehavioral Health Science, College of Nursing, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States. Electronic address: diwilkie@uic.edu.

Funding

Nursing and Health Research Informatics CoreP30NR010680 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI WILKIE, DIANA J · 2007 to 2011
$2.4M
Describing, Contrasting, and Visualizing End-of-Life Care in the 21st CenturyR01NR012949 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI ANSARI, RASHID, KEENAN, GAIL M · 2011 to 2014
$2.0M
NINR NIH HHS 1R01 NR012949NINR NIH HHS P30 NR010680NINR NIH HHS R01 NR012949
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the state of the science for the five standardized nursing terminology sets in terms of level of evidence and study focus.

designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: Keyword search of PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases from 1960s to March 19, 2012 revealed 1257 publications. REVIEW

methodsFrom abstract review we removed duplicate articles, those not in English or with no identifiable standardized nursing terminology, and those with a low-level of evidence. From full text review of the remaining 312 articles, eight trained raters used a coding system to record standardized nursing terminology names, publication year, country, and study focus. Inter-rater reliability confirmed the level of evidence. We analyzed coded results.

resultsOn average there were 4 studies per year between 1985 and 1995. The yearly number increased to 14 for the decade between 1996 and 2005, 21 between 2006 and 2010, and 25 in 2011. Investigators conducted the research in 27 countries. By evidence level for the 312 studies 72.4% were descriptive, 18.9% were observational, and 8.7% were intervention studies. Of the 312 reports, 72.1% focused on North American Nursing Diagnosis-International, Nursing Interventions Classification, Nursing Outcome Classification, or some combination of those three standardized nursing terminologies; 9.6% on Omaha System; 7.1% on International Classification for Nursing Practice; 1.6% on Clinical Care Classification/Home Health Care Classification; 1.6% on Perioperative Nursing Data Set; and 8.0% on two or more standardized nursing terminology sets. There were studies in all 10 foci categories including those focused on concept analysis/classification infrastructure (n=43), the identification of the standardized nursing terminology concepts applicable to a health setting from registered nurses' documentation (n=54), mapping one terminology to another (n=58), implementation of standardized nursing terminologies into electronic health records (n=12), and secondary use of electronic health record data (n=19).

conclusionsFindings reveal that the number of standardized nursing terminology publications increased primarily since 2000 with most focusing on North American Nursing Diagnosis-International, Nursing Interventions Classification, and Nursing Outcome Classification. The majority of the studies were descriptive, qualitative, or correlational designs that provide a strong base for understanding the validity and reliability of the concepts underlying the standardized nursing terminologies. There is evidence supporting the successful integration and use in electronic health records for two standardized nursing terminology sets: (1) the North American Nursing Diagnosis-International, Nursing Interventions Classification, and Nursing Outcome Classification set; and (2) the Omaha System set. Researchers, however, should continue to strengthen standardized nursing terminology study designs to promote continuous improvement of the standardized nursing terminologies and use in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Societies, NursingTerminology as TopicObserver VariationUnited StatesElectronic health recordNursing diagnosisSystematic reviewTerminology

Identifiers

PMID24412062
PMCPMC4095868

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.