Search

To identify the profile of time restrictions and their justifications as reported on a set of published reviews.There is a body of methodological knowledge addressing how to design and perform reviews in their different designs. However, how the time restrictions should be set and the justifications that should be provided have received limited attention to date.A Focused Mapping Review and Synthesis following three steps (Focus, Mapping and Synthesis) was performed on 2021. The ENTREQ checklist was followed to report methods and findings.All Journal of Clinical Nursing reviews published in online or printed version on 2020 (n = 85). Time limits imposed in the literature search, and justifications provided were mapped and synthetised with quantitative and a qualitative analysis.Time restrictions in reviews are not always reported and, when available, reflect three different profiles: (a) including all studies, to provide a comprehensive review; (b) selecting a period, to provide reviews for a contemporary practice; and (b) including only recent studies for reviews reflecting current practice. Reasons justifying time restrictions are not always reported; when documented, justifications regard changes in the practice, in the research or in the theory occurred over time, recent or ongoing.In exploring the date restrictions applied in reviews published over the course of a year, it emerged that the time of access to the sources and the justifications are not always indicated. The attributes of the emerging concepts of "comprehensive reviews," "contemporary practice reviews" and "current practice reviews" might be further developed to support researchers in selecting an appropriate time frame.Reviews require improvements regarding the time restrictions and their justifications. Methodological efforts to standardise the approach ensuring transparency in review protocols and in the following review publication are recommended.

The main aims of this study were to evaluate the intensity of stress, anxiety and depression as well as the effectiveness of coping strategies adopted pre-operatively in brain neoplasm patients. A descriptive-explorative study design was undertaken. During 2008, patients admitted to a large Italian hospital neurosurgical unit with their first (n = 21) or recurrent (n = 15) brain neoplasm, on the day before their surgical procedure, were consecutively recruited into the study. The Perceived Stress Scale, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Jalowiec Coping Scale were administered via face-to-face interview. Patients with their first occurrence of neoplasm perceived the same stress intensity as those with recurrent neoplasm (mean ± standard deviation: 14.9 ± 6.7 versus 17.2 ± 8.8, p = 0.36). They also reported the same likelihood of anxiety at a borderline level (odds ratio (OR) 4.88, 95%CI 0.42 to 40.97, p = 0.06) and at a clinically relevant level (OR 0.32, 95%CI 0.01 to 5.37, p = 0.35) as well as the same likelihood of depression at a borderline level (OR 1.25, 95%CI 0.20 to 8.40, p = 0.78). Only one case of clinically relevant depression emerged among patients at their first diagnosis. Patients at their first occurrence, as well as those at recurrence, reported that they adopted optimistic coping strategies (mean 2.20, 95%CI 2.01 to 2.38 versus mean 1.96, 95%CI 1.71 to 2.20) and sought support (mean 1.81, 95%CI 1.58 to 2.05 versus mean 1.89, 95%CI 1.63 to 2.15). According to the findings of this exploratory study, on the pre-operative day, brain neoplasm patients at their first diagnosis and at recurrence wish to confront the situation: they adopt optimistic coping strategies, they seek support and they wish to take a constructive problem-solving approach. Knowledge of the intensity of stress, anxiety and depression as well as the coping strategies adopted by the patients is important for clinicians in their efforts to tailor care to patients' individual needs.