Web citations in the nursing literature: how accurate are they?

One problem with using Web citations is whether those documents will be available over time. We examined 573 Web citations in articles published in nursing journals and checked their availability (either by direct link or by searching the main site). There was a mean of 3.1 Web citations per article. Most Web citations were to documents that related to clinical practice, for example, clinical guidelines and explanations of clinical conditions and treatments. Of the 573 Web citations, 414 (72.3%) were still available; of those, 229 (55.3%) were able to be accessed by direct link and the other 185 (44.7%) by searching the main Web site. However, 159 (27.7%) of the references were not available, not even by searching the Internet using key terms from the citation. Considering that more than a fourth of the Web citations in this study were no longer available, authors need to be cautious about using the Web as a primary source of information for their publications.

Dissemination of research in clinical nursing journals.

AIM: The purposes of the study were to describe the extent of research, clinical and evidence-based practice articles published in clinical nursing journals and to explore the communication of research and practice knowledge in the clinical nursing literature using citation analysis. BACKGROUND: For nursing research to have an impact on clinical practice and build evidence for practice, findings from research must transfer into the clinical practice literature. By analysing the extent of research published in clinical nursing journals, the citations in those articles, and other characteristics of the nursing literature, we can learn more about the linkages between research and practice in nursing. DESIGN: This was a descriptive study of 768 articles and 18901 citations in those articles. METHODS: Feature articles were classified into four groups - (i) original research reports; (ii) clinical practice articles (non-data based papers on a clinical topic); (iii) systematic reviews, integrative literature reviews, guidelines and papers describing evidence-based practice; and (iv) others. Each citation was then examined to determine if it was a reference to a research study or to a document on clinical practice. RESULTS: Nearly a third of the articles in clinical nursing journals were reports on research studies; another third addressed clinical practice. Of the 14232 citations analysed in clinical nursing journals, 6142 were to research reports (43.2%) and about the same number of citations were to clinical documents (n = 5844, 41.1%). Medical research articles were cited most frequently - 27.1% of the citations in clinical journal articles. Nursing research articles were only 7.6% of the cited documents in clinical publications. CONCLUSIONS: Dissemination of research findings in the clinical nursing literature occurred at two levels: through articles that reported studies of potential value to the nurse's practice and citations to research publications within articles. Relevance to clinical practice. Disseminating research in journals that are geared to clinicians is essential to increase nurses' awareness of research findings that might be relevant to their practice. This study documented that articles in clinical nursing journals disseminated not only information about clinical practice, but also informed readers about research of potential value to the nurse's practice.

Information sources for developing the nursing literature.

BACKGROUND: Journals are an important method for disseminating research findings and other evidence for practice to nurses. Bibliometric analyses of nursing journals can reveal information about authorship, types of documents cited, and how information is communicated in nursing, among other characteristics. OBJECTIVES: The purposes of our study were to describe the types of documents used to develop the clinical and research literature in nursing, and extent of gray literature cited in those publications. DESIGN: This was a descriptive study of 18,901 citations of articles in clinical specialty and research journals in nursing published between January 2004 and June 2005. METHODS: The research team reviewed each citation to assess if the cited document was a journal article, book chapter or book, or document falling into the category of gray literature. Frequency counts for each type of cited document were recorded. RESULTS: Most of the citations were to journal articles (n=14,392, 76.1%) and among those, to articles in medical journals (n=7719, 40.8% of all the citations). This was true for the literature as a whole and for the clinical specialty and research literature separately. Although citations to medical journals were most common, in the clinical nursing literature there was a significantly higher proportion of citations to medical journal articles (n=6332, 44.5%) than in the nursing research literature (n=1387, 29.7%) (LR(X)(2)=326.7, p<0.0001). Nearly 10% of the citations were to gray literature. There was an increase in citations to websites (5.7%) compared to a study done only a few years earlier. CONCLUSIONS: Our study documented that journal literature was the primary source of information for communication within nursing. This is consistent with other biomedical and hard sciences where the transfer, assimilation, and use of information occur mainly within the scientific community. With a reliance on journal articles for dissemination of research and evidence for clinical practice, improved methods will be needed for integrating this knowledge and presenting it in a usable form to clinicians. As journals proliferate, it will become increasingly difficult for clinicians to keep current with research findings to guide their practice. The development and testing of new methods for integrating and disseminating research evidence to busy clinicians will be increasingly important in nursing. Gray literature was nearly 10% of the citations. The study also revealed an increase in citations to websites, which is anticipated to continue in the future. Further study is needed on the indexing of gray literature relevant to research use and evidence-based practice in nursing and on how to make this literature easily available to clinicians.

Citation analysis of the maternal/child nursing literature.

Few bibliometric studies have been done of the nursing literature; however, much can be learned about nursing and specialty areas of clinical practice by examining the articles published in nursing journals. The purposes of this study were to describe the extent of research, clinical, and evidence-based practice articles published in maternal/child nursing journals and the information sources used to develop that literature. A total of 112 articles and 2571 citations from three randomly selected maternal/child nursing journals were analyzed. Nearly half (n=51, 46%) of all articles were reports of original research studies. Research publications were cited most frequently including research studies published in medical journals (n=687, 26.7% of all the cited documents), followed by research studies published in nursing journals (n=371, 14.4%) and journals in other disciplines. The maternal/child nursing journals examined in this study are disseminating research findings to nurses for use in clinical practice.

Reference accuracy in neonatal-maternal nursing literature.

PURPOSE: To identify the frequency and types of reference errors in neonatal-maternal nursing literature. This study was an extension of earlier research on reference accuracy in pediatric and critical care nursing journals. DESIGN: A random sample was selected of references in three nursing journals: Neonatal Network: The Journal of Neonatal Nursing; Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing; and The American Journal of Maternal/Child Nursing. References were compared against original publications, and errors were classified as major or minor based on criteria used in earlier studies. RESULTS: Fifty-four of the 221 references had errors, for an overall error rate of 24.4 percent. Major errors were found in 21.3 percent of the references, and minor errors were calculated at 3.2 percent. Errors in the author's name were most common, followed by errors in titles of articles and books. The rates of reference errors in this study were lower than those reported previously in the nursing and medical literature.