ArticleWorldviews on evidence-based nursing2026
Publication Dynamics Where Evidence Is Missing: Mapping Empty Reviews in Nursing.
Article in Worldviews on evidence-based nursing, 2026. 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.
- Patients' and Providers' Attitudes Toward Artificial Intelligence and Electronic Health Record Use in Deep Phenotyping and Rare-Disease Screening: An Empty Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe production of science is characterized by socio-political and technological forces that influence what knowledge is produced. In this context, empty reviews have received little attention, with debate ranging over the pros and cons of their publication. However, their dissemination may improve the ability to recognize and prioritize research gaps. The main aim of the study was to map empty reviews published in nursing science. MATERIALS AND
methodsA scoping review in accordance with Arksey and O'Malley, Joanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews. The review protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework database in April 2025. Four databases and grey literature were searched; there were eligible scoping or systematic reviews defined as "empty" in the field of nursing. A modified framework of Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice, and Research recommendations was used to summarize the extracted data.
resultsFifteen empty reviews were identified. In terms of Patterns, the empty reviews were mainly published in high-income countries over the last 10 years and related to clinical practise and outcomes, education and training, organizational and human resources, and approaches to maternity care, mental health, and nursing education. In general, reporting guidelines were used, while funding was not documented. In terms of Recommendations, more primary studies, the development of tools and the strategic use of empty reviews to inform the funding and research agenda were suggested. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Empty reviews in nursing may indicate neglected or emerging areas that can help orient research agendas to ensure equity-oriented priorities and reduce the marginalization of under-investigated topics. Recognizing empty reviews as legitimate scholarly outputs supports transparent mapping of knowledge gaps, helping funders, institutions, and research programs direct resources to under-investigated areas. Dedicated registries that publicly report empty reviews, establish minimum reporting standards, and require explicit keywords in titles and abstracts would improve transparency and accessibility, and stimulate targeted primary research that can turn "empty" areas into active inquiry. From this perspective, empty reviews may attract research investment rather than be seen as methodological failures.
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.