Nursing systematic review services

The methodology is the same discipline, but three features of the nursing evidence base change how a review has to be executed, and reviews that ignore them get sent back.

The literature sits in different places. A search confined to MEDLINE will miss material indexed only in CINAHL, and the two use different controlled vocabularies, so the strategy has to be rebuilt per database rather than pasted across. Our guide to building a CINAHL search covers where the translation breaks.

The questions are often not about effect size. Many nursing questions concern how an intervention is experienced, why it is or is not adopted, or what makes it acceptable. Those need qualitative synthesis methods, not a forest plot, and appraisal instruments built for qualitative designs.

Interventions are complex and locally delivered. The same named intervention often differs substantially between studies, which frequently makes pooling inappropriate. Where that is the case the honest route is structured synthesis without meta-analysis, which is a defined method rather than a fallback.

1. 1

   Question and protocol

   We frame the question, set eligibility criteria that a second screener can apply unaided, and fix the protocol before screening begins.

2. 2

   Database-specific search

   The strategy is rebuilt against each thesaurus, including CINAHL Subject Headings, and put through PRESS peer review before it runs.

3. 3

   Dual screening and extraction

   Two independent screeners with agreement measured and conflicts resolved against the criteria, then structured extraction into a piloted form.

4. 4

   Design-matched appraisal

   Appraisal instruments chosen to fit the designs actually included, with judgements recorded rather than reduced to a score.

5. 5

   Synthesis and reporting

   Pooled analysis where pooling is defensible, structured synthesis where it is not, reported against PRISMA 2020.

You receive a fixed protocol, a documented and peer-reviewed search strategy per database, screening records with agreement reported, an extraction table, appraisal judgements with reasoning, the synthesis, and a manuscript-ready write-up with a PRISMA flow diagram. If the review is heading for a journal rather than a committee, it carries GRADE certainty ratings as well.

• A protocol fixed before screening, with eligibility criteria a second screener can apply
• Database-specific strategies including CINAHL, peer reviewed with PRESS
• Dual independent screening with inter-rater agreement reported
• Appraisal instruments matched to the designs included, judgements written out
• Quantitative pooling where defensible, structured synthesis where it is not
• A manuscript-ready write-up reported against PRISMA 2020

Deciding which of these you are building before the appraisal is run avoids the most expensive rework in the whole process. The distinction is set out in levels of evidence and how they differ from certainty ratings.

We quote a fixed fee shaped by the number of databases, the expected yield to screen, whether the synthesis is quantitative, qualitative, or both, and how much of the write-up you want drafted. Send the question and we will return a fixed quote.