Original ArticlesA Bibliometric Analysis of Review Types Published in the Nursing Scientific LiteratureCarter-Templeton, Heather PhD, RN-BC, FAAN; Wrigley, Jordan MSLS, MA; Nicoll, Leslie H. PhD, MBA, RN, FAAN; Owens, Jacqueline K. PhD, RN, CNE; Oermann, Marilyn H. PhD, RN, ANEF, FAAN; Ledbetter, Leila S. MLIS, AHIP Author Information Adult Health Department, West Virginia University, Morgantown (Dr Carter-Templeton); Center for Research Data and Digital Scholarship, University Libraries, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder (Ms Wrigley); Maine Desk LLC, Portland (Dr Nicoll); Dwight Schar College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Ashland University, Ashland, Ohio (Dr Owens); Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, North Carolina (Dr Oermann); and Duke University Medical Center Library, Durham, North Carolina (Ms Ledbetter). Correspondence: Heather Carter-Templeton, PhD, RN-BC, FAAN, Adult Health Department, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506 ([email protected]). All authors contributed to this work: Heather Carter-Templeton: conceptualization, project management, data curation, writing, visualization, analysis, review, and editing. Jordan Wrigley: data curation, data management, visualization, analysis, and writing. Leslie H. Nicoll: data curation, data management, data analysis, writing, review, and editing. Jacqueline K. Owens: data curation, writing, review, and editing. Marilyn H. Oermann: writing, review, and editing. Leila S. Ledbetter: data curation, review, and editing. The authors have disclosed that they have no significant relationships with, or financial interest in, any commercial companies pertaining to this article. Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal's Web site (www.advancesinnursingscience.com). Advances in Nursing Science 46(1):p 28-40, January/March 2023. | DOI: 10.1097/ANS.0000000000000424 Buy SDC Metrics Abstract Reviews in the nursing scientific literature have steadily expanded in scope and range. This has resulted in a variety of terms used to describe these reports found in bibliographic databases, creating confusion. This study investigated the status of reviews in the published nursing literature, including: (1) number of reviews; (2) conventions related to naming and description; (3) publication location; and (4) areas of clarity and inconsistency. Eighty-five percent of reviews (n = 5893) included in this study adhered to an identified review strategy, complete with a clear approach. The remainder (n = 981, 15%) did not. Authors of reviews must follow the identified protocol for their review type and share all relevant information including standards and rigor. Editors and peer reviewers need to possess up-to-date knowledge on methodologies associated with specific review types. © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.