ArticleBMJ open2026
Mapping the landscape of concept analysis in nursing and auditing reporting completeness: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionConcept analysis is widely used in nursing to clarify key concepts, support theory development and improve conceptual consistency in research and practice. Although concept analysis studies have increased substantially, concerns remain regarding methodological heterogeneity and incomplete reporting. Based on preliminary scoping of the literature, no dedicated scoping review has yet mapped the broad landscape of concept analysis studies in nursing while also examining reporting completeness. This protocol describes a scoping review that will characterise methodological trends, identify recurrent reporting omissions and generate an evidence map to support future methodological work in this field. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will follow established scoping review guidance and will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Guided by the Population-Concept-Context framework, we will search major English-language and Chinese-language databases for nursing-related concept analysis studies. All concept analysis approaches will be considered eligible, provided the study explicitly reports analysing a nursing-related phenomenon. Two reviewers will independently screen records, assess full texts and chart data using a standardised extraction form. In parallel, reporting completeness will be examined using an author-developed, evidence-informed audit checklist. Findings will be synthesised using descriptive statistics and qualitative thematic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required because this review will synthesise data from publicly available sources. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentation. The review is expected to provide a structured overview of current concept analysis practices in nursing and to identify priority areas for improving reporting transparency in future methodological work.
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.