{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016550522648083623, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.383333333333334, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Systematic reviews: Guidelines, tools and checklists for authors

Are literature reviews obsolete? The immediate and obvious (albeit controversial to some) answer is yes, they are – they have been superseded by far better methods that add value and credibility to work that would otherwise lack objective measures of quality and transparency. Literature reviews have served the health professions for decades, but it is time to lay the traditional literature review to rest. Systematic reviews have long been established as the review type of choice. In this editorial we offer suggestions as to why literature reviews should be considered extinct, and outline recommendations for authors considering how to improve the quality of their review projects. This editorial presents a practical guide for Nursing & Health Sciences authors to increase the scientific rigor and validity of their submissions. The focus is on methods for qualitative and quantitative systematic reviews. Guidance exists for a wide range of synthesis methodologies, but qualitative and quantitative approaches are the two most commonly reported in Nursing & Health Sciences.