Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22080465›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics2012

How to write a systematic review of reasons.

Daniel Strech, Neema Sofaer

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 26 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 26 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

62 citing papers in PubMed, 26 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Bioethics of somatic gene therapy: what do we know so far?Current medical research and opinion · 2023
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Anonymity in Kidney Paired Donation: A Systematic Review of Reasons.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2023
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Organoids: a systematic review of ethical issues.Stem cell research & therapy · 2022
    Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. The ethics of genome editing in non-human animals: a systematic review of reasons reported in the academic literature.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2019
    Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Daniel StrechCentre for Ethics and Law in the Life Sciences, Institute of History, Ethics and Philosophy, Hannover Medical School, Carl Neuberg Strasse 1, Hannover, Germany. strech.daniel@mh-hannover.de
Neema Sofaer

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 088360
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systematic reviews, which were developed to improve policy-making and clinical decision-making, answer an empirical question based on a minimally biased appraisal of all the relevant empirical studies. A model is presented here for writing systematic reviews of argument-based literature: literature that uses arguments to address conceptual questions, such as whether abortion is morally permissible or whether research participants should be legally entitled to compensation for sustaining research-related injury. Such reviews aim to improve ethically relevant decisions in healthcare, research or policy. They are better tools than informal reviews or samples of literature with respect to the identification of the reasons relevant to a conceptual question, and they enable the setting of agendas for conceptual and empirical research necessary for sound policy-making. This model comprises prescriptions for writing the systematic review's review question and eligibility criteria, the identification of the relevant literature, the type of data to extract on reasons and publications, and the derivation and presentation of results. This paper explains how to adapt the model to the review question, literature reviewed and intended readers, who may be decision-makers or academics. Obstacles to the model's application are described and addressed, and limitations of the model are identified.

Indexed as

Research DesignDecision MakingHumansPolicy MakingResearchSystematic Reviews as TopicWriting

Identifiers

PMID22080465
PMCPMC3262986

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.