Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37685482›Full record

ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Effectiveness of a Standardized Nursing Process Using NANDA International, Nursing Interventions Classification and Nursing Outcome Classification Terminologies: A Systematic Review.

Claudio-Alberto Rodríguez-Suárez, Héctor González-de la Torre, María-Naira Hernández-De Luis, Domingo-Ángel Fernández-Gutiérrez, Carlos-Enrique Martínez-Alberto, Pedro-Ruymán Brito-Brito

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 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. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. The development of nursing-sensitive indicators: A critical discussion.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2024
    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

6 authors.

Claudio-Alberto Rodríguez-SuárezResearch Support Unit, Insular Maternal and Child University Hospital Complex, Canary Health Service, 35016 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-6226-7374
Héctor González-de la TorreResearch Support Unit, Insular Maternal and Child University Hospital Complex, Canary Health Service, 35016 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-1774-4260
María-Naira Hernández-De LuisEl Doctoral Primary Health Care Centre, Canary Health Service, 35110 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-9720-3661
Domingo-Ángel Fernández-GutiérrezPrimary Care Management of Tenerife, Canary Health Service, 38004 Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-9151-6579
Carlos-Enrique Martínez-AlbertoNuestra Señora de Candelaria School of Nursing, 38010 Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0252-5308
Pedro-Ruymán Brito-BritoPrimary Care Management of Tenerife, Canary Health Service, 38004 Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-8048-9701

Funding

Instituto de Salud Carlos III SIVI FILE 1308/13-1Official College of Nurses, S/C Tenerife
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The decision-making in clinical nursing, regarding diagnoses, interventions and outcomes, can be assessed using standardized language systems such as NANDA International, the Nursing Interventions Classification and the Nursing Outcome Classification; these taxonomies are the most commonly used by nurses in informatized clinical records. The purpose of this review is to synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of the nursing process with standardized terminology using the NANDA International, the Nursing Interventions Classification and the Nursing Outcome Classification in care practice to assess the association between the presence of the related/risk factors and the clinical decision-making about nursing diagnosis, assessing the effectiveness of nursing interventions and health outcomes, and increasing people's satisfaction. A systematic review was carried out in Medline and PreMedline (OvidSP), Embase (Embase-Elsevier), The Cochrane Library (Wiley), CINAHL (EbscoHOST), SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI and Scielo (WOS), LILACS (Health Virtual Library) and SCOPUS (SCOPUS-Elsevier) and included randomized clinical trials as well as quasi-experimental, cohort and case-control studies. Selection and critical appraisal were conducted by two independent reviewers. The certainty of the evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Methodology. A total of 17 studies were included with variability in the level and certainty of evidence. According to the outcomes, 6 studies assessed diagnostic decision-making and 11 assessed improvements in individual health outcomes. No studies assessed improvements in intervention effectiveness or population satisfaction. There is a need to increase studies with rigorous methodologies that address clinical decision-making about nursing diagnoses using NANDA International and individuals' health outcomes using the Nursing Interventions Classification and the Nursing Outcome Classification as well as implementing studies that assess the use of these terminologies for improvements in the effectiveness of nurses' interventions and population satisfaction with the nursing process.

Indexed as

effectivenessnursing carenursing processstandardized nursing terminologysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37685482
PMCPMC10487812

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.