This issue of the Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing (JCN) contains a special issue focusing on systematic reviews. Systematic reviews are an important part of the research process, helping us to synthesize findings across a body of literature and see what the overall picture is in an area of science. Although JCN regularly publishes high-quality systematic reviews and integrative reviews, we wanted to take this opportunity to highlight the role that review papers have in advancing science.
Literature reviews are not only useful for the introduction of manuscripts and for the background and significance sections of grant proposals, but published reviews can help to push an area of science forward, making recommendations for future practice and, in some cases, showing that a particular approach to solving a problem simply is not effective and it is time for the scientific and clinical community to move on to something else.
More often, systematic reviews demonstrate where gaps still remain in the literature and what aspects of a research area need further exploration. For example, in this issue of JCN, Delva and colleagues1 demonstrate that existing mobile health interventions for self-managing cardiometabolic risk factors have largely failed to explore how such interventions are used by and should be tailored to Latino communities to best improve health outcomes. Similarly, a recent systematic review by Kebapci and colleagues2 found that electronic health interventions need to asses for differences in patient characteristics that may impact intervention usability and efficacy. Such findings are more impactful when demonstrated in synthesis across a review of all studies in an area of science.
When high-quality systematic review findings are quantitatively synthesized using appropriate meta-analytic methods, the impact of the review can be further strengthened. In this issue, we include meta-analyses looking at outcomes of exercise interventions for patients with coronary heart disease3 and patients with comorbid hypertension and type 2 diabetes,4 and diet interventions to improve high-density lipoprotein outcomes among adults who are overweight or obese.5 Meta-analytic approaches can also be taken to quantitatively synthesize observational studies as well, as seen in a recent publication on risk factors for post-acute coronary syndrome.6 Meta-analyses do have a number of methodological challenges, however, so we encourage authors to seek training in the method or the assistance of a methodologist with relevant expertise.
Finally, as editors, we encourage authors to use methodological guidance for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, such as that available from the Cochrane Collaboration (http://www.cochrane.org). When writing review manuscripts, it is incredibly helpful to follow the reporting guidelines available, such as the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (http://www.prisma-statement.org)7 or any other relevant guidelines, many of which are available at the EQUATOR Network website (http://www.equator-network.org).
REFERENCES