Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38746729›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of nursing studies advances2021

The effectiveness of the role of advanced nurse practitioners compared to physician-led or usual care: A systematic review.

Maung Htay, Dean Whitehead

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of nursing studies advances, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
75citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

75 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. The Patient's Voice in Advanced Practice Nursing: A Qualitative Systematic Review of Lived Experiences.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Introducing needs-based epilepsy follow-up: Patient satisfaction compared to standard of care follow-up.Epileptic disorders : international epilepsy journal with videotape · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Maung HtayAdvanced Nurse Practitioner, Hampshire Hospitals Foundation Trust, Hampshire, United Kingdom.
Dean WhiteheadCollege of Health and Medicine, School of Nursing, University of Tasmania, Launceston TASMANIA 7250.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the effectiveness of the role of advanced nurse practitioners compared to physicians-led/ usual care (care managed by medical doctors or non-advanced nurse practitioners). Background: Advanced nurse practitioners contribute to the improvement of quality patient care and have substantial potential to optimise the health of people globally. Since the formal recognition of advanced nurse practitioners by the International Council of Nurses, among others, the role has been adopted across most departments and clinical specialties, particularly in high-income countries. Design: Systematic review of primary research evidence. Data Source: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane registry, Cochrane trials, and Cochrane EPOC (PDQ Evidence) were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patient care and health resource utilisation outcomes associated with advanced nurse practitioners. Review Methods: The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. The chosen articles were restricted to full-text English language trials published in the last 20 years, incorporating comparators of usual care. Search terms were limited to variations of advanced nurse practitioner role and practice. The eligible studies were bias risk assessed and quality assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Clinical and service outcomes were analysed using narrative synthesis as the marked heterogeneity between studies precluded meta-analysis. Results: Thirteen RCTs were reviewed. All of them were conducted across high-income countries within primary care and hospital settings involving paediatric and adult patients. Five trials were assessed as high quality, and eight were of low to moderate quality. Positive effects were demonstrated for the impact of advanced nurse practitioners on usual care; for indigestion, mean difference [MD] 2.3: 95% CI 1.4, 3.1]), perceptions of health status [ (MD -140.6; 95% CI -184.8, -96.5)], satisfaction levels [ (MD ranged from -8.79; 95% CI -13.59, -3.98 to 0.61; 95% CI -4.84, 6.05)], physical function (1.58 [SD 0.76] v. 1.81 [SD 0.90]), and blood pressure control (systolic [133 [SD 21] v. 135 [SD 19] mmHg Conclusion: The evidence of this review supports the positive impact of advanced nurse practitioners on clinical and service-related outcomes: patient satisfaction, waiting times, control of chronic disease, and cost-effectiveness especially when directly compared to medical practitioner-led care and usual care practices - in primary, secondary and specialist care settings involving both adult and pediatric populations.

Indexed as

Advanced nurse practitionerAdvanced nursing practiceCare qualityClinical impactPatient careService improvement

Identifiers

PMID38746729
PMCPMC11080477

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.