Also, it restaurant is possible that certain reviews demonstrate a fair reporting of analysis and synthesis of normative information but are not able to fulfill some basic prisma criteria. Excluding such reviews would deprive our review of important insights about how reviews of normative information are analyzing and synthesizing information. Nevertheless, we present slightly adapted prisma ratings as part of our results. Apart from the reporting quality, it would also be impossible to assess the methodological quality of the included reviews because of the lack of specific quality assessment tools for reviews of normative ethics literature. Analysis we determined the academic fields of the journals that published included reviews based on how they were classified by the journal Citation Reports ( jcr ) Science Edition 2014 and jcr social Science Edition 2014. Where no entry was available, the journal was categorized as not found. We further categorized the affiliation of all authors.
All reviews for empirical, normative, and mixed literature were included at this stage. The in-depth analysis and corresponding data presented in this paper focused on the normative and mixed literature, because methodological particularities, especially concerning analysis and synthesis, have been much less widely discussed for normative and conceptual literature than for empirical research. The selection was initially done by one researcher (MM). Then, a second researcher (HK) checked all writing the selection results (inclusion and exclusion) for consistency with the selection criteria. Discrepancies were discussed and successfully overcome via consensus-seeking discussions. Because we aimed to assess the current state of the art of reviews of normative ethical literature, we did not exclude reviews that did not fulfill all prisma criteria. Depicting the state of art must also include reviews of relatively bad reporting quality.
Look for/produce empirical data for ethical decision making or ethical evaluation. Examine ethical regulations or recommendations, etc. It was not sufficient for the abstract to mention,. G., that the results of the study indicate that there are ethical issues (b) have an identifiable description of at least some methodological elements describing a reproducible literature search (e.g., search terms, databases used, or inclusion/exclusion criteria irrespective of its own possible labeling as narrative. Only mentioning that a review was done was not enough (c) Only on full text level: be a review of normative literature or a review of mixed literature. Exclusion (a) Not be a review of study protocols or of ethics consultation documentation (b) Not be solely concerned with legal analysis (c) Not solely address metatopics of (systematic) reviews,. G., methodology of literature reviews in bioethics or for ethical aspects in hta 17, 19 21, methodologies of empirical ethics research 11 or discussions about (research) ethics in (medical) systematic reviews 22 (d) Only on full text level: not be (solely) a review of empirical.
Systematic review of the effects of schools and school
It was not deemed sufficient for the results of a review deed to be able to be regarded as ethically relevant. Furthermore, reviews should have an identifiable description of at least some methodological elements describing a reproducible literature search (e.g., search terms, databases used, or inclusion/exclusion criteria). We labeled such reviews as semi-systematic reviews. Only those reviews that explicitly or implicitly reported on search, selection, analysis, and synthesis were labeled as (full) systematic reviews. Finally, we only included reviews written in English, german, or French. Table 2 Inclusion/exclusion criteria: title/abstract level and full text level Publication type: Published journal articles Language: Title/abstract level: only articles with at least an abstract in English, german, or French Full text level: only articles in English, german, or French Content: The article must: Inclusion.
This meant the article had to,. Pose an ethical question. Determine ethical problems/challenges iii. Address ethical decision making or the use of ethical frameworks for decision making. Explore ethical views or reasons for/against a decision, etc.
See table 1 and the flowchart in Fig. Table 1 searches and hits PubMed explorative search Date: publication dates: no restriction (resulted in results from 1988 to ) Language: no restriction search string: (systematic review or systematic literature reviewTitle/Abstract or qualitative reviewTitle/Abstract or literature reviewTitle/Abstract or argument-basedTitle/Abstract or systematic surveytitle/Abstract or literature surveytitle/Abstract. Duplicate hits regarding earlier search) PhilPapers Date: publication dates: Start: no date restriction; end: (i.e., all hits after that date ignored) Language: no restriction search mode: Basic fuzzy filter key words: Mandatory key words: Relevance key words: systematic and review ethics Hits: 447 (incl. Duplicate hits regarding earlier searches) google Scholar Date: publication dates: Start: no date restriction; end: (i.e., all hits after that date ignored) Language: no restriction search mode: Allintitle display mode: Sorted by relevance; citations deactivated search string: bioethics or ethics and (systematic review or literature. Duplicate hits regarding earlier searches) Fig. 1 Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (prisma) flowchart It proved to be impossible to search directly and solely for reviews of normative literature, as such a distinction is not established or standardized yet in databases (e.g., no standardized key words refer.
Therefore, the search had to be intentionally broad in order to capture any review done related to topics of medical ethics or bioethics, even if this included reviews that solely analyzed and synthesized empirical literature. We have not used a language restriction for the search in order to assess the overall amount of identifiable reviews. Selection For the purpose of this meta-review on a still little-standardized review area we decided to apply rather sensitive and not too restrictive selection criteria. We selected all reviews that explicitly or implicitly indicated their objective to analyze and present ethics literature in a systematic manner. To be included, reviews had to be explicitly concerned with normative ethical considerations of medical topics;. G., they had to pose an ethical question or determine ethical challenges.
A note on the methodology of, mSF
Despite the neglect of reviews on normative literature by manuals for the development of clinical guidelines and health technology assessment (hta and despite any explicit guidance on methodological particularities, such reviews of normative literature already exist, and scholarly debate on their opportunities and limitations has. This study aimed to identify trends in the quantity of published systematic and semi-systematic reviews of normative ethical or mixed (empirical and normative ethical) literature, the academic affiliations of corresponding authors, and other review characteristics. The study further particularly assessed how these reviews report on their methods for (1) search, (2) selection, (3) analysis, essay and (4) synthesis of ethics literature. Methods, search, the review was based on two. PubMed searches with additional searches. PhilPapers and google Scholar. For PubMed, two search strings were used. The first one was composed for screening purposes, and the second one used a refined search string.
While these guidelines cover qualitative as well as quantitative research, they do not explicitly mention whether or how current methodological standards apply to normative ethical literature trunk (normative literature for short). Similarly, manuals for evidence-based guideline development do not explain how to include ethical issues in a systematic and transparent manner. Recent methodological debate demonstrated the need of knowledge synthesis methods that are specified for particular types of information. But here again, normative ethical information was not acknowledged explicitly. The ethics literature includes empirical and normative studies on morally challenging topics. Normative literature aims to evaluate or prescribe policies, (moral) reasons, and decisions for or against particular (moral) judgements and policies. Most often, this type of literature can also be described as argument-based or reason-based literature 9,. The source material of ethics research includes (ethical) theory, intuitions, common sense, and scientifically produced empirical data.
ethically justified in overriding the parents wishes? What are ethical arguments for and against sham interventions? Is it allowable to store biological samples and dna of minors for non-therapeutic research? When is public health surveillance ethical? Since the rise of scholarly conduct in applied ethical analysis in the 1960s and the establishment of institutes for medical ethics, corresponding peer-reviewed journals, conferences, etc., it seems to be unquestioned that normative ethical input in medical and health policy decision making is a professional. However, it is also known that scholars can come to contrasting but equally well-argued conclusions on what is normatively right or wrong, or more or less appropriate. Against this background it is surprising that modern standards for evidence-based decision making in clinical care and public health still rely on eminence-based input alone regarding normative ethical information, even though review methodology has been increasingly used in various disciplines and fields. Scientific communities such as the cochrane collaboration, the campbell Collaboration, and institutions such as the Institute of Medicine (IOM) or the national Institute for health and Care Excellence (nice) provide detailed guidance for review methodologies in different fields.
Guiding questions are: What was world the applied ethical approach and technical procedure for identifying and extracting the relevant normative information units? What method and procedure was employed for synthesizing normative information? Experts and stakeholders from bioethics, hta, guideline development, health care professionals, and patient organizations should work together to further develop this area of evidence-based health care. Keywords, systematic reviewLiterature reviewNormative literatureArgument-based literatureEmpirical ethicsbioethicsLiterature searchEvidence-based medicine. Background, decision making in clinical care, public health, biomedical research, and other fields is strongly based on external knowledge (e.g., knowledge from clinical trials, health services research, or economic studies). Non-systematic retrieval and appraisal of external information, however, risks several types of bias and therefore diminishes the quality and accountability of decisions. Systematic reviews (SRs) aim to identify and process information from published material in a systematic, transparent, and reproducible manner. Their ultimate goals are to guarantee comprehensiveness and to reduce systematic errors (bias) in the identification and processing of relevant information, and they are therefore conducive to good evidence-based decision making. Decision making in medicine, research, and health policy often explicitly or implicitly includes normative ethical considerations.
Evidence-based Dentistry: Part
Received:, accepted: 8 September 2016, abstract, background, modern standards for evidence-based decision making in clinical care and writing public health still rely solely on eminence-based input when it comes to normative ethical considerations. Manuals for clinical guideline development or health technology assessment (HTA) do not explain how to search, analyze, and synthesize relevant normative information in a systematic and transparent manner. In the scientific literature, however, systematic or semi-systematic reviews of ethics literature already exist, and scholarly debate on their opportunities and limitations has recently bloomed. Methods, a systematic review was performed of all existing systematic or semi-systematic reviews for normative ethics literature on medical topics. The study further assessed how these reviews report on their methods for search, selection, analysis, and synthesis of ethics literature. Results, we identified 84 reviews published between 19 in 65 different journals and demonstrated an increasing publication rate for this type of review. While most reviews reported on different aspects of search and selection methods, reporting was much less explicit for aspects of analysis and synthesis methods: 31 did not fulfill any criteria related to the reporting of analysis methods; for example, only 25 of the reviews reported. While reviews of ethics literature are increasingly published, their reporting quality for analysis and synthesis of normative information should be improved.