ArticleBMC nursing2025
Personalized nursing as the missing link of providing care: A systematic review.
Article in BMC nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- How gender-sensitive is nursing care in hospitals? Results of a national questionnaire survey in cardiology in Germany.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Article
- Analysis the effectiveness nursing interventions for contrast-induced adverse reactions in postoperative general surgery patients undergoing contrast-enhanced computed tomography scans.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2026Article
- Analysis of nursing consultations for people with systemic arterial hypertension in Primary Health Care.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2026Article
- Applications of Artificial Intelligence Technologies in Nursing for Noncommunicable Chronic Diseases: A Scoping Review.Journal of nursing management · 2026Article
- Invisible nursing care: a concept analysis.BMC nursing · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of personalized nursing care. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we systematically searched multiple databases and search engines, including PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, CINAHL, and Google Scholar, for articles published between 2011 and September 31, 2022. To evaluate the quality of the incorporated studies, we utilized established assessment tools, including the CONSORT checklist, STROBE statement, and Kmet standard criteria. A qualitative narrative synthesis approach was employed for data synthesis. The systematic review included 24 studies involving 5428 participants. Across these studies, a consistent positive correlation was found between personalized care administered by nurses and participant satisfaction. Patients receiving personalized care experienced reduced negative emotional symptoms, suggesting potential therapeutic benefits extending beyond physical health outcomes. Health guidance education, individualized healthcare plan and dedicated nursing team were the examples of personalized nursing interventions. The results underlined the importance of personalized nursing in delivering essential services. Personalized nursing aims to improve the quality of care by adapting it to each individual's unique needs and characteristics. Patient or public contribution: This study did not include contributions from patients or the public. Systematic Review Registration: CRD42022367814.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.