↓ Skip to main content

What value is the CINAHL database when searching for systematic reviews of qualitative studies?

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
68 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
151 Mendeley
citeulike
10 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
What value is the CINAHL database when searching for systematic reviews of qualitative studies?
Published in
Systematic Reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0069-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kath Wright, Su Golder, Kate Lewis-Light

Abstract

The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) is generally thought to be a good source to search when conducting a review of qualitative evidence. Case studies have suggested that using CINAHL could be essential for reviews of qualitative studies covering topics in the nursing fieldapprove, but it is unclear whether this can be extended more generally to reviews of qualitative studies in other topic areas. We carried out a retrospective analysis of a sample of systematic reviews of qualitative studies to investigate CINAHL's potential contribution to identifying the evidence. In particular, we planned to identify the percentage of included studies available in CINAHL and the percentage of the included studies unique to the CINAHL database. After screening 58 qualitative systematic reviews identified from the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), we created a sample set of 43 reviews covering a range of topics including patient experience of both illnesses and interventions. For all 43 reviews (21 %) in our sample, we found that some of the included studies were available in CINAHL. For nine of these reviews, all the studies that had been included in the final synthesis were available in the CINAHL database, so it could have been possible to identify all the included studies using just this one database, while for an additional 21 reviews (49 %), 80 % or more of the included studies were available in CINAHL. Consequently, for a total of 30 reviews, or 70 % of our sample, 80 % or more of the studies could be identified using CINAHL alone. 11 reviews, where we were able to recheck all the databases used by the original review authors, had included a study that was uniquely identified from the CINAHL database. The median number of unique studies was 9.09; while the range had a lowest value of 5.0 to the highest value of 33.0. Assuming a rigorous search strategy was used and the records sought were accurately indexed, we could expect CINAHL to be a good source of primary studies for qualitative evidence syntheses. While we found some indication that CINAHL had the potential to provide unique studies for systematic reviews, we could only fully test this on a limited number of reviews, so we are less confident about this finding.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 68 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 147 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 35 23%
Student > Master 32 21%
Student > Postgraduate 13 9%
Librarian 12 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 7%
Other 25 17%
Unknown 24 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 71 47%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 12%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Psychology 4 3%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 19 13%
Unknown 29 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 February 2020.
All research outputs
#525,012
of 15,880,617 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#80
of 1,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,632
of 237,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,880,617 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,410 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 237,106 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them