ArticleWorldviews on evidence-based nursing2024
Reporting guidelines for evidence-based practice projects: A Delphi study and publication checklist.
Article in Worldviews on evidence-based nursing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Constructing the early enteral nutrition management protocol for severely burned adult patients: a Delphi study.BMC nutrition · 2026Article
- Reporting guidelines for evidence-based practice projects: A Delphi study and publication checklist.Worldviews on evidence-based nursing · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvidence-based practice (EBP) is the cornerstone of sound patient care. Despite the known importance of disseminating EBP, of the 600 reporting guidelines registered with the EQUATOR network, none exist on reporting an EBP project. This lack of guidance leads to publications that lack rigor and discourages more novice writers who may not know where to begin.
aimsThe purpose of this study was to establish Reporting Guidelines for EBP projects by achieving consensus among subject matter experts (SMEs) regarding the required components for a high-quality report.
methodsThis study followed a modified Delphi technique. The first round solicited free-text responses regarding reporting sections and sub-sections. The team analyzed these results and incorporated information from the literature to generate items for the second round. In the second and third rounds, participants ranked each section on a Likert scale of 1-4 (not relevant to extremely relevant) and provided free-text revision suggestions. Items that reached a 70% consensus moved from one round to the next.
resultsSMEs reached consensus on 6 sections and 30 sub-sections. Sections address the process for determining best practice recommendations as well as implementation into practice. Headers include (1) "Introduction," (2) "EBP Design," (3) "Methods to Generate Recommendations," (4) "Evidence Findings," (5) "Implementation," and (6) "Conclusion." All items are unaffiliated with specific EBP models, hierarchies, or question formats. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: The Reporting Guidelines for EBP Projects is a checklist of items with associated descriptors that should be addressed in articles reporting an EBP project. The intention is to provide a roadmap of the items required to publish EBP efforts. It is meant to create a set of expectation for journal editors to provide concrete guidance for authors and elevate the quality and quantity of EBP projects in the literature.
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.