Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medicine
Published in: BMC Medicine 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research article

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

Authors: Marcel Mertz, Hannes Kahrass, Daniel Strech

Published in: BMC Medicine | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Modern standards for evidence-based decision making in clinical care and 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 1997 and 2015 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 the ethical approach needed to analyze and synthesize normative information.

Conclusions

While reviews of ethics literature are increasingly published, their reporting quality for analysis and synthesis of normative information should be improved. Guiding questions are: What was 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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Sugarman J, Sulmasy DP. Methods in medical ethics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; 2010.
2.
3.
Brock DW. Truth or consequences: the role of philosophers in policy-making. Ethics. 1987;97(4):786–91.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Institute of Medicine, Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research, Eden J, Levit LA, Berg AO, Morton SC, editors. Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. Washington, DC; The National Academies Press; 2011.
5.
Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Oxford: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
6.
Petticrew M, Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide. Malden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell; 2006.CrossRef
7.
Knüppel H, Mertz M, Schmidhuber M, Neitzke G, Strech D. Inclusion of ethical issues in dementia guidelines: a thematic text analysis. PLoS Med. 2013;10(8):e1001498.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Straus SE, Kastner M, Soobiah C, Antony J, Tricco AC. Engaging researchers on developing, using, and improving knowledge synthesis methods: introduction to a series of articles describing the results of a scoping review on emerging knowledge synthesis methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;73:15–8.CrossRefPubMed
9.
McCullough LB, Coverdale JH, Chervenak FA. Constructing a systematic review for argument-based clinical ethics literature: the example of concealed medications. J Med Philos. 2007;32(1):65–76.CrossRefPubMed
10.
11.
12.
McDougall RJ, Notini L. Overriding parents’ medical decisions for their children: a systematic review of normative literature. J Med Ethics. 2014;40(7):448–52.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Mertz M, Sofaer N, Strech D. Did we describe what you meant? Findings and methodological discussion of an empirical validation study for a systematic review of reasons. BMC Med Ethics. 2014;15:69.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Schreier M. Qualitative content analysis in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2012.
15.
Mayring P. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim: Beltz; 2010.CrossRef
16.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PG. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
18.
Mertz M, Strech D. Systematic and transparent inclusion of ethical issues and recommendations in clinical practice guidelines: a six-step approach. Implement Sci. 2014;9:184.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
McDougall R. Reviewing literature in bioethics research: increasing rigour in non-systematic reviews. Bioethics. 2015;29(7):523–8.CrossRefPubMed
20.
McCullough LB, Coverdale JH, Chervenak FA. Argument-based medical ethics: a formal tool for critically appraising the normative medical ethics literature. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(4):1097–102.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Droste S, Gerhardus A. Ethische Aspekte in Kurz-HTA-Berichten: Eine systematische Übersicht. ZEFQ. 2003;97(10):711–5.
22.
Vergnes JN, Marchal-Sixou C, Nabet C, Maret D, Hamel O. Ethics in systematic reviews. J Med Ethics. 2010;36(12):771–4.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook forSystematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available from www.​handbook.​cochrane.​org
24.
Stroup DF, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008–12.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Institute of Medicine. Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011.
26.
Garrard J. Health sciences literature review made easy: the matrix method. Jones & Bartlett Learning 1999
27.
Aveyard H. Doing a literature review in health and social care: a practical guide. Open University Press 2012
28.
Jesson J, Matheson K, Lacey FM. Doing your literature review. Traditional and systematic techniques. SAGE Publications Ltd. 2011.
29.
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination: Systematic reviews. CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York Publishing Services Ltd 2008
30.
Hofmann B. Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21(3):312–8.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Whittemore R, Knafl K. The integrative review: updated methodology. J Adv Nurs. 2005;2(5):546–53.
32.
Aluas M, Colombetti E, Osimani B, Musio A, Pessina A. Disability, human rights, and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health: systematic review. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;91(13 Suppl 1):S146–154.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Monteiro MAA, Barbosa RCM, Barroso MGT, Vieira NFC, Pinheiro AKB. Ethical dilemmas experienced by nurses presented in nursing publications. Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem. 2008;16:1054–9.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Wernow JR, Gastmans C. A review and taxonomy of argument-based ethics literature regarding conscientious objections to end-of-life procedures. Christ Bioeth. 2010;16(3):274–95.CrossRef
35.
Ashcroft RE, Chadwick DW, Clark SR, Edwards RH, Frith L, Hutton JL. Implications of socio-cultural contexts for the ethics of clinical trials. Health Technol Assess. 1997;1(9). 1–65.
36.
Borry P, Stultiens L, Nys H, Cassiman JJ, Dierickx K. Presymptomatic and predictive genetic testing in minors: a systematic review of guidelines and position papers. Clin Genet. 2006;70(5):374–81.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Caplan L, Hoffecker L, Prochazka AV. Ethics in the rheumatology literature: a systematic review. Arthritis Care Res. 2008;59(6):816–21.CrossRef
38.
Chung KC, Pushman AG, Bellfi LT. A systematic review of ethical principles in the plastic surgery literature. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(5):1711–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
Fourie C, Biller-Andorno N, Wild V. Systematically evaluating the impact of diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) on health care delivery: a matrix of ethical implications. Health Policy. 2014;115(2–3):157–64.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Naudé AM, Bornman J. A systematic review of ethics knowledge in audiology (1980–2010). Am J Audiol. 2014;23(2):151–7.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Thys K, Van Assche K, Nobile H, Siebelink M, Aujoulat I, Schotsmans P, Dobbels F, Borry P. Could minors be living kidney donors? A systematic review of guidelines, position papers and reports. Transpl Int. 2013;26(10):949–60.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Schleidgen S, Klingler C, Bertram T, Rogowski WH, Marckmann G. What is personalized medicine: sharpening a vague term based on a systematic literature review. BMC Med Ethics. 2013;14:55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Niemansburg SL, van Delden JJ, Dhert WJ, Bredenoord AL. Reconsidering the ethics of sham interventions in an era of emerging technologies. Surgery. 2015;157(4):801–10.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Zwijsen SA, Niemeijer AR, Hertogh CM. Ethics of using assistive technology in the care for community-dwelling elderly people: an overview of the literature. Aging Ment Health. 2011;15(4):419–27.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Heilferty CM. Ethical considerations in the study of online illness narratives: a qualitative review. J Adv Nurs. 2011;67(5):945–53.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Shahriari M, Mohammadi E, Abbaszadeh A, Bahrami M. Nursing ethical values and definitions: a literature review. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2013;18(1):1–8.PubMedPubMedCentral
47.
Christenhusz GM, Devriendt K, Dierickx K. To tell or not to tell? A systematic review of ethical reflections on incidental findings arising in genetics contexts. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013;21(3):248–55.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Kölch M, Ludolph AG, Plener PL, Fangerau H, Vitiello B, Fegert JM. Safeguarding children’s rights in psychopharmacological research: ethical and legal issues. Curr Pharm Des. 2010;16(22):2398–406.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Hanlon C, Tesfaye M, Wondimagegn D, Shibre T. Ethical and professional challenges in mental health care in low- and middle-income countries. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2010;22(3):245–51.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Current state of ethics literature synthesis: a systematic review of reviews
Authors
Marcel Mertz
Hannes Kahrass
Daniel Strech
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medicine / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1741-7015
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0688-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

BMC Medicine 1/2016 Go to the issue

Research article

Twenty-year trajectories of alcohol consumption during midlife and atherosclerotic thickening in early old age: findings from two British population cohort studies

Opinion

‘”Why me, why now?” Using clinical immunology and epidemiology to explain who gets nontuberculous mycobacterial infection

Research article

Measures to assess commonly experienced symptoms for people with dementia in long-term care settings: a systematic review

Commentary

Transforming healthcare through regenerative medicine

Research article

Human newborn bacille Calmette–Guérin vaccination and risk of tuberculosis disease: a case-control study

Commentary

Probiotics and microbiota composition