Page 103 - Encyclopedia of Nursing Research

70 n CoCHRAnE REvIEW

and made accessible in a standard and struc- of Cochrane reviews on nursing-related
tured way. topics and the use of Cochrane reviews in
C Health care practitioners face daily chal- nursing practice. The CnCF is coordinated
lenges concerning the need for their prac- from Adelaide, Australia, with more than
tice to be evidence based. However, they 35 members.
are confronted with information overload Cochrane reviews with their empha-
because of the increasing number of studies sis on controlled trials reflect a positivist
being published worldwide in thousands of paradigm within scientific inquiry. The
medical, scientific, and health-related jour- Cochrane Collaboration strives for meth-
nals. Cochrane reviews that collate evidence odological excellence in the conduct of
from multiple studies go some way to assist- reviews. The methodology of Cochrane
ing practitioners to make informed clini- review is rigorous and includes the follow-
cal decisions on what interventions work ing: (1) electronic publication, without word
best toward achieving positive outcomes limitations, thus methodological detail can
for patients. Cochrane reviews can inform be included; (2) public availability of a pre-
the development of clinical practice proto- planned methods section termed “protocol”;
cols, guidelines, and pathways as well as (3) application of quality ratings to included
health care policy (Starr, Chalmers, Clarke, & studies that seek to limit bias and random
oxman, 2009; Torloni, 2010). errors; (4) a meta-analysis of homogenous
The vast majority of Cochrane reviews results from studies if feasible; and (5) per-
collate evidence relating to specific diseases iodic updates to include new evidence if
and treatments (e.g., diabetes, cancer). To available. The format of the Cochrane review
date, there are few reviews that specifically is standardized and structured. The official
focus on nursing practice or nursing specific handbook, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic
issues. Davison, Sochan, and Pretorius (2010) Reviews of Interventions published by the
noted that out of 117 protocols and completed Cochrane Collaboration, details the meth-
reviews within the Effective Health Care odological procedure for preparing and
Practice and the organisation of Health Care maintaining Cochrane reviews (Higgins &
Review Group, 27% (n = 32) mentioned nurses Green, 2009).
or nursing practice in the title or protocol. Cochrane reviews use more rigor-
These results would indicate that Cochrane ous methods than non-Cochrane reviews
systematic reviews have some relevance to (Moseley, Elkins, Herbert, Maher, &
nursing. However, a conflict exits between Sherrington, 2009; Tricco, Tetzlaff, Pham,
the dominant focus on controlled trials and Brehaut, & Moher, 2009) and thus are com-
the exclusion of other research methods. monly regarded as being of superior qual-
Many health care research questions are dif- ity to other reviews (Shea, Boers, Grimshaw,
ficult to test using experimental methodolo- Hamel, & Bouter, 2006; Starr et al., 2009). In
gies, thus creating some conflict for nurses 2009, the Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews
in using Cochrane reviews in clinical prac- received its first official impact factor (5.182)
tice and in their involvement in conducting based on citations in 2008 (Cochrane Reviews,
Cochrane reviews. 2010). The impact factor is a measure of the
Although there is no Cochrane nursing frequency with which the “average article” in
review group, a Cochrane nursing Care Field a journal has been cited in a particular year.
(CnCF) has been established and is one of Since the formal establishment of the
16 fields within the Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Collaboration, more than 4,000
The aims of the CnCF include becoming a reviews have been published (Cochrane
global alliance of those involved in nursing Reviews, 2010). However, the Collaboration
care who wish to promote the preparation continues to strive to improve review