ReviewJournal of education and health promotion2024
Critical thinking in nursing and midwifery learning: Quantitative and qualitative review.
Review in Journal of education and health promotion, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study tried to make a quantitative and qualitative review of the scientific production of the mobilization of critical thinking in nursing and midwifery learning. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe search was carried out in the "Web of Science" and "PubMed" databases between 2001 and 2021, resulting in 43 articles using several keywords "critical thinking," "learning", "nursing," "midwifery". The study will be split into two parts: A quantitative review in the form of a bibliometric analysis and a qualitative one in the form of a literature review. The quality of the articles has been verified by assessing the risk of bias (selection bias, detection bias, and interpretation bias) and using the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence method. RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS: The selected articles were the subject of a quantitative study leading to several results: chronology of publications, types of publications, number of publications, top journals of publications, etc. The same articles have been processed to produce a full qualitative review of the experimental studies.
conclusionThe results showed that the total and annual articles need to be higher. Experimental studies, especially quasi-experimental, are far higher than reviews or descriptive studies. The qualitative research showed a controversial relationship between critical thinking and learning improvement.
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.