Systematic Reviews are exhaustive, critical assessments of evidence from different data sources in relation to a given subject in the area of nursing. A systematic search of the relevant data sources should be carried out and the items collected should be carefully evaluated for inclusion based on apriori defined inclusion/exclusion criteria. A description and an analytical graphic representation of the process should be provided. The specific features of the participants' or patients' populations of the studies included in the review should be described as well as the measures of exposure and the outcome with indication towards the corresponding data sources. A structured abstract is required (the same as for short reviews). The text must not exceed 7,000 words including the acknowledgments, with no more than four tables and/or figures and a minimum of 40 references.
Case reports will be welcome; however, a report with not a single but several cases will be recommended. Case reports should describe new observations of diseases, clinical findings or novel/unique treatment outcomes relevant to practicing respiratory diseases, should be presented by up to six authors as concisely as possible, and should not exceed 1500 words including tables and figures; tables and figures are within 3 combined; references are within 20. Abstract should be less than 100 words.
Meta-analyses should follow the same guidelines for systematic reviews. They are expected to provide exhaustive information and statistical assessment of the pooled estimates of pre-defined outcomes, study heterogeneity and quality, possible publication bias, meta-regression, and subgroup analyses when and where appropriate. Depending on the type of study, the authors are invited to submit PRISMA flow diagrams or MOOSE checklists. Both systematic reviews and meta-analyses will be dealt with as original articles are, as far as the editorial process is concerned.