Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31367454›Full record

ArticleNursing open2019

Measuring the effects of guided clinical reasoning on the Advanced Nursing Process quality, on nurses' knowledge and attitude: Study protocol.

Claudia Leoni-Scheiber, Hanna Mayer, Maria Müller-Staub

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nursing open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Relationships between theNursing open · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
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

3 authors.

Claudia Leoni-ScheiberInstitute of Nursing Science University Vienna Vienna Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8389-2857
Hanna MayerInstitute of Nursing Science University Vienna Vienna Austria.
Maria Müller-StaubLectoraat Nursing Diagnostics Hanze University Groningen Groningen the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThis article is a report of a study protocol designed to examine the effects of guided clinical reasoning on the quality of the Advanced Nursing Process-the evidence-based version of the traditional nursing process. It aims to describe the theoretical framework-Kirkpatrick's evaluation model, the key concepts and the instruments for the planned study.

designA complex experimental intervention study using data and method triangulation is proposed.

methodsRegistered Nurses ( DISCUSSION: Kirkpatrick's model (including quantitative and qualitative methods) is providing evaluations from different perspectives on the quality of the Advanced Nursing Process and on intervention effects.

Indexed as

Advanced Nursing ProcessExperimental studiesGuided clinical reasoningInstrument Quality of Diagnoses, Interventions, and Outcomes (Q‐DIO)Nurse attitudesNursing knowledgeNursing recordsPositions on Nursing Diagnoses ScaleRecord reviewStandardized nursing language

Identifiers

PMID31367454
PMCPMC6650691

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.