Skip to Main Content

Librarian support for evidence synthesis in nursing

For comprehensive guidance on evidence synthesis methods, tools, and reporting standards, please visit the MRU Evidence Synthesis Guide.

This page provides discipline-specific support for Nursing and Midwifery students, faculty, and research assistants who are completing or contributing to evidence syntheses. It highlights nursing-relevant databases, resources, and the types of support available from the Nursing & Midwifery Librarian.

As your Nursing and Midwifery Librarian, I currently offer two levels of support for evidence syntheses - consultation and collaboration.

Level of Support: Consultation

I would be happy to provide the following support to you or your research assistant when completing a comprehensive evidence synthesis:

  • Provide overview of steps in a specific type of review (e.g. scoping, systematic)

  • Advice on which databases to search

  • Assistance with identifying key search terms

  • Training in the use of citation management tools like Mendeley or Zotero

  • Advice on how to save or document your search strategies

  • Assistance in locating additional resources on review methods or reporting guidelines
Level of Support: Collaboration

Time and interest permitting, I may be available to provide enhanced support for evidence synthesis projects led by MRU faculty. 

Any contributions at this level will require formal acknowledgement or co-authorship, to be determined at the onset of the project. 

These include:

  • Contribute to the development of the review protocol

  • Design and executive search strategies in selected databases

  • Search for grey literature

  • Import records into chosen software and remove duplicates

  • Provide Prisma flowchart and relevant search strategy documentation

  • Author relevant sections of manuscript (e.g. description of search methodology)

Evidence Syntheses Resources

There are many different types of reviews that appear in the scholarly literature. Sutton et al. (2019) identified 48 different review types, each having their own expectations for searching, methods for analyzing the data, and reporting. 

Before beginning a review, researchers must consider which type is the best fit with their research question, time, and workload. Some review types like systematic reviews take 12-18 months and a team of 2 or more researchers to complete. Others, like narrative/traditional literature reviews, take a less systematic approach to searching and can be completed more quickly. 

As a student, you may be asked to assist with a systematic, scoping, or integrative review as a research assistant. The resources in subsequent sections will provide helpful background and support for this work.

If you are interested in turning a literature review you completed as part of a course project into an article for a journal, the resources on narrative or traditional literature reviews may be useful. Here is an example of a literature review published in the Canadian Journal of Undergraduate Research. For more tips on publishing your work, check out our publishing guide.

What review is right for you?

Right Review is a tool to help guide your choice of a knowledge synthesis method.

Additional Resources on Review Types

Peters et al. (2015) provided the following description of a scoping study and its aims:

[T]he aim of the scoping reviews is a way of mapping the key concepts that underpin a research area. Scoping reviews can be particularly useful for bringing together literature in disciplines with emerging evidence, as they are suited to addressing questions beyond those related to the effectiveness or experience of an intervention. Scoping reviews can be conducted to map a body of literature with relevance to time, location (e.g. country or context), source (e.g. peer-reviewed or grey literature), and origin (e.g. healthcare discipline or academic field).The value of scoping reviews to evidence-based practice is the examination of a broader area to identify gaps in the research knowledge base, clarify key concepts, and report on the types of evidence that address and inform practice in the field. Scoping reviews also may be carried out to determine not only the extent of the research available regarding a topic but also the way the research has been conducted. (p. 142)

Scoping review are time intensive (12+ months to complete) and require a multi-person team. Although they are most common in the health sciences, scoping reviews can also be found in other discplines.

Overview of Scoping Review Process

Reporting Guidelines and Methodological Resources

 

According to the Cochrane Collaboration (2019), "A systematic review attempts to collate all the empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a specific research question. It uses explicit, systematic methods that are selected with a view to minimizing bias, thus providing more reliable findings from which conclusions can be drawn and decisions made" (Chapter 1). Meta-analyses, often combined with a systematic review, pool the results from existing studies for further quantitative analysis.

Systematic reviews, with or without an associated meta-analysis, are very time intensive (12+ months) and require two or more researchers (typically more) to complete. While originally associated with the health sciences, systematic reviews are now published in a variety of disciplines including the social sciences and environmental sciences.

Overview of Systematic Review Process

Reporting Guidelines and Methodological Resources

Heath Sciences

 

Social Sciences

Environmental Sciences

Is a systematic review the right approach?

Before starting a systematic review, check whether your research question, purpose, evidence base, and available time really require this type of review. Systematic reviews are full research projects, not just “advanced literature reviews.”

Why this matters

  • Systematic reviews take significant time and effort.
  • You need at least two team members for screening and quality checks.
  • Some questions fit better as a scoping, rapid, or narrative review.
  • Poorly designed systematic reviews can mislead rather than clarify the evidence.
  • You need enough published studies for a meaningful synthesis.

How to decide if a systematic review fits

Use decision aids that help match your question, purpose, and timeline to a review type:

  • Right Review Tool
  • Choosing the Right Review
  • Study designs decision aids
  • “What type of review do I need?” tools from research methods groups

Other review types to consider

  • Scoping review – maps what research exists, key concepts, and gaps when the literature is broad or heterogeneous.
  • Rapid review – streamlines some steps of a systematic review when decisions are needed on a short timeline.
  • Narrative review – provides a flexible, descriptive overview, often used for background, theory, or clinical practice issues.

Nursing example

A student nurse wants to study whether mindfulness interventions reduce anxiety in hospitalised adolescents. After searching CINAHL and Medline, they find only a small number of studies with very different designs, intervention formats, and outcome measures. Because the evidence base is limited and inconsistent, a scoping review—which maps what is known and identifies gaps—would be more appropriate than a full systematic review.

Suggested next steps

  • Check for existing reviews in CINAHL, Medline, and Scopus.
  • Discuss scope and feasibility with your supervisor.
  • Meet with an MRU librarian to explore review type options and search strategies.

Narrative or traditional literature reviews provide a general overview of the previous research done on a topic, and can take many shapes and forms. They do not need to follow any specific guideline or standard, so they can be completed more quickly and by a solo researcher.

A narrative literature review should have...

  • A clearly defined topic
  • A search for relevant literature
  • A logical organization structure
  • An interpretation and discussion of the selected relevant literature

Structure
A common structure for narrative literature reviews is IMRaD, or:

  • Introduction
    • What is your topic?
    • What are you interested in finding out?
    • Why did you select this topic?
  • Methods
    • How did you look for the literature?
    • Where did you look?
    • What search terms did you use?
    • What kind of literature did you find?
  • Results
    • Did the literature you found change your opinion on the topic?
    • Did you find out something new?
    • What were the key concepts?
  • Discussion
    • Evaluate and summarize the major concepts
    • Connect the major concepts to future research potential

While the structure above may be sufficient for your topic, you may also consider using the similar but more robust structure IAMRDC, or:

  • Introduction
  • Aim
  • Methods
  • Results
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion

Above content adapted from Narrative Literature Reviews by Carrie Price, Towson University, CC BY-NC 4.0.

Additional Resources

  • Baethge, Goldbeck-Wood, S., & Mertens, S. (2019). SANRA-A scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 4(1), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0064-8
    • Although this article is focused on the appraisal of narrative reviews, as an author you may find it helpful to review what they are looking for in a high quality narrative review.
  • Ferrari, R. (2015). Writing narrative style literature reviews. Medical Writing., 24(4), 230–235. https://doi.org/10.1179/2047480615Z.000000000329
  • Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039



 

An integrative review is a "critical analysis of empirical, methodological, or theoretical literature, which draws attention to future research needs" (Toronto & Remington, 2020, p. 3). It may include quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods literature, and requires a systematic search and appraisal of selected studies. An integrative review is estimated to take 6-12 months to complete and requires two or more researchers.

Methodological Resources

 

Nursing-Specific Databases for Evidence Synthesis

Core databases available through MRU

  • CINAHL Complete (EBSCO)
    Primary nursing and allied health database. Essential for nursing-specific terminology, journals, and practice-focused literature.
  • MEDLINE (EBSCO)
    Biomedical and clinical sciences literature relevant to nursing and midwifery. (Also available through PubMed.)
  • PsycINFO (EBSCO)
    Useful for mental health, behaviour, patient experience, and psychosocial aspects of care.

Emcare access note

  • Emcare (Elsevier)
    Broad international database for nursing, midwifery, and allied health.
    Not available at MRU. Access is available through the University of Calgary. UCalgary collaborators may be able to run searches or share exported results.

Evidence Sources Beyond Databases

These tools provide pre-appraised evidence, existing reviews, and public health or community health summaries. They can be helpful for preliminary searching before developing a full search strategy.

  • Health Evidence — Database of high-quality, pre-appraised systematic reviews of public health interventions.
  • The Community Guide — Summaries of evidence for community, clinical, and population health interventions.
  • 6S Evidence Pyramid — Framework for quickly locating the highest level of research evidence available.
  • Public Health+ — High-quality evidence relevant to public and community health. (Optional)

Associate Professor, Library

Profile Photo
Francine May
Contact:
Associate Dean, Research
fmay@mtroyal.ca
She/Her/Elle
Website
Subjects: Midwifery, Nursing