SynthesisNursing open2023
Analysis of gender perspective in the use of NANDA-I nursing diagnoses: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Nursing open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Gender-Sensitive Nursing: An Operationalizing Concept Analysis.Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Pooled it
- Analysis of gender perspective in the use of NANDA-I nursing diagnoses: A systematic review.Nursing open · 2023Pooled it
- Article
- DIEN Expert System Version 1 to formulate nursing diagnoses.Revista CuidarteArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo identify, describe and analyse the gender perspective in the use of the diagnoses contained in the NANDA-I taxonomy in observational studies published in the scientific literature. DESIGN AND
methodsA systematic review has been conducted spanning from 2002 to 2020. The most frequent NANDA-I nursing diagnoses in care plans reported in observational studies, and the defining characteristics and related factors identified for men and women have been described. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA-P) have guided our research. The main findings have been summarized using a descriptive narrative synthesis approach.
resultsForty-one articles were included in our study. With regard to gender analysis, the percentage of men and women that make up the sample were not specified in all articles, and half of the studies did not identify gender either in the diagnosis label or in their defining characteristics or related factors. Based on the reviewed articles, gender perspectives are not systematically incorporated in the use of the NANDA-I diagnosis. Therefore, gender biases in its use in the scientific literature may exist. This situation poses barriers to determine the health responses that are different and unequal between women and men.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.