SynthesisNursing open2026
Shift Transition Communication Among Nurses: A Systematic Review of ISBAR and SBAR-Based Structured Handover Tools.
Synthesis in Nursing open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the existing literature on structured handover tools, including the ISBAR and SBAR-based structured handover frameworks, and synthesize recent evidence on their effectiveness in reducing communication errors during nursing shift handovers and patient transfers.
designA systematic review using a synthesis without meta-analysis. REVIEW
methodsFifteen English-language, open-access studies published between 2019 and 2024 were identified through title and abstract screening using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Methodological quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool for Quasi-Experimental Studies. Due to methodological heterogeneity, a synthesis without meta-analysis was undertaken. The review focused on nurse-led handovers occurring during within-unit shift changes and inter-unit patient transfers, consistent with the eligibility criteria. DATA SOURCES: Studies were retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, the British Nursing Database, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and MEDLINE on 28 September 2024.
resultsStructured handover tools including SBAR and ISBAR-based frameworks were generally associated with improved communication, enhanced patient safety and fewer reported adverse events across a range of clinical settings. Structured training supported effective implementation, with most studies reporting improved adherence when training was provided. However, mixed findings were reported, particularly in complex or context-specific settings, indicating variability in effectiveness across study designs and environments.
conclusionsStructured handover tools, including ISBAR and SBAR-based frameworks, may support improvements in communication quality and patient safety during nursing shift handovers and patient transfers. While most studies reported positive outcomes, findings were mixed in some settings, highlighting the influence of context, transfer type and training on effectiveness and indicating a moderate level of certainty in the available evidence. IMPLICATION FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Structured handovers may strengthen patient safety by supporting clear, complete and consistent communication between nurses during routine clinical transitions. IMPACT: Problem addressed: Communication errors during shift handovers and patient transfers. MAIN
findingsStructured handover tools were commonly associated with improvements in communication and may contribute to patient safety benefits. Research impact: Indicates the potential value of structured communication practices across diverse clinical settings and handover contexts. REPORTING
methodsThis review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines and used a synthesis without meta-analysis. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: There was no direct patient or public involvement. ETHICS APPROVAL/INSTITUTIONAL REGISTRATION: Approved by the Villa College Ethical Centre for Postgraduate Studies (Reference Number: VC/CPS/2024/RA-185).
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.