Current state of ethics literature synthesis: a systematic review of reviews

Mertz, Marcel; Kahrass, Hannes; Strech, Daniel

doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0688-1

Cited by 55 publications

(91 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…25 There are different types of SRs of argumentative literature, for example, SRs of (ethical) issues, conclusions, concepts, recommendations and reasons. 28 Even if SRs are a rather new methodological approach within the field of bioethics, there have been comprehensive publications on the value of such reviews, 29,30 and several SRs of argumentative literature in general 31 and specifically of SRs of reasons have been already conducted and published. [32][33][34]…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

<p>Involving Patient Groups in Drug Research: A Systematic Review of Reasons</p>

Rach¹,

Lukáš

Mueller³

et al. 2020

PPA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Patients have evolved from mere objects of study to active contributors to drug research in recent decades. Since individual patient's influence to change research processes effectively is limited, patient groups play an important role in the planning and conducting of pharmaceutical studies. Patient group engagement in drug research is usually seen as being beneficial from an ethical viewpoint as well as from the perspective of research practice, while potential disadvantages and risks have been discussed considerably less. Purpose: A systematic review of reasons was conducted to allow for an overview of the reasons for and against involving patient groups in drug research. Methods: The literature search was conducted in PubMed and Web of Science. Reasons concerning the influence of patient groups on drug research were extracted and synthesized using qualitative content analysis. The review's main limitation arises from a lack of critical appraisal regarding the quality of the reasons. Results: A total of 2271 references were retrieved, of which 97 were included in the analysis. Data extraction revealed 91 (73.4%) reasons for and 30 (24.2%) reasons against involving patient organizations in drug research, and 3 (2.4%) ambivalent reasons; amounting to 124 reasons. The main groups of reasons were clustered around the categories: quality of research, acquisition and allocation of resources, and the patient role in research. Conclusion: This is the first systematic review of reasons concerning the influence of patient groups on drug research. It provides a basis for a continuing debate about the value as well as the limits of involving patient groups. Due to the diversity of research projects there can be no general recommendation for or against patient group involvement. More research is necessary to assess potential advantages and disadvantages of patient groups' influence on other types of research (eg genetics).

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

<p>Involving Patient Groups in Drug Research: A Systematic Review of Reasons</p>

Rach¹,

Lukáš

Mueller³

et al. 2020

PPA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, in a certain way, this study is a further follow-up of earlier publications where we presented the results of systematic reviews of normative literature, which is why the structure was kept approximatively the same. 4,8 Research design…”

Section: Objectivementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regarding systematic reviews of normative literature, our earlier publications reported some methodological shortcomings. 4,8 In order to adapt such a methodology, it is essential to first gain an overview of the standards currently used in systematic reviews of bioethical literature, including the empirical one which has not been investigated yet.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic reviews of empirical literature on bioethical topics: Results from a meta-review

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In bioethics, especially nursing ethics, systematic reviews are increasingly popular. The overall aim of a systematic review is to provide an overview of the published discussions on a specific topic. While a meta-review on systematic reviews on normative bioethical literature has already been performed, there is no equivalent for systematic reviews of empirical literature on ethical topics. Objective This meta-review aims to present the general trends and characteristics of systematic reviews of empirical bioethical literature and to evaluate their reporting quality. Research design Literature search was performed on PubMed and Google Scholar. Qualitative content analysis and quantitative approaches were used to evaluate the systematic reviews. Characteristics of systematic reviews were extracted and quantitatively analyzed. The reporting quality was measured using an adapted PRISMA checklist. Findings Seventy-six reviews were selected for analysis. Most reviews came from the field of nursing (next to bioethics and medicine). Selected systematic reviews investigated issues related to clinical ethics (50%), followed by research ethics (36%) and public health ethics or organizational ethics (14%). In all, 72% of the systematic reviews included authors’ ethical reflections on the findings and 59% provided ethical recommendations. Despite the heterogeneous reporting of the reviews, reviews using PRISMA tended to score better regarding reporting quality. Discussion The heterogeneity currently observed is due both to the interdisciplinary nature of nursing ethics and bioethics, and to the emerging nature of systematic review methods in these fields. These results confirm the findings of our previous review of systematic reviews on normative literature, thereby highlighting a recurring methodological gap in systematic reviews of bioethical literature. This also indicates the need to develop more robust methodological standards. Conclusion Through its extensive overview of the characteristics of systematic reviews of empirical literature on ethical topics, this meta-review is expected to inform further discussions on minimal standards and reporting guidelines.

show abstract

“…Moreover, using a systematic literature review to answer a research question in philosophical ethics is not entirely new. [34,35] Mertz et al [36] note that systematic reviews of ethics literature exist (for example, Parris and Peachey [33] used systematic reviews to empirically examine how the construct 'servant leadership' is morally defined in published ethical literature, and applied to organisational settings) and also encourage such use -specifically for contributing normative inputs for evidencebased ethical decision-making in clinical care. Decision-making within the clinical context, they contend, is strongly based on external knowledge, such as knowledge of moral philosophy and applied ethics.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Non-systematic reviews could also diminish the quality and application of such external knowledge to ethical decision-making. Pae [37] and others [35,36] add that literature reviews such as narrative reviews and eminence-based reviews, which fail to include pre-specified eligibility criteria, can result in methodological shortcomings, leading to bias that may influence an author's interpretation and/or conclusions, 37] or reducing methodological transparency regardless of the actual methodological quality of a study.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%