Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27267765›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2016

Domains of quality for clinical ethics case consultation: a mixed-method systematic review.

Louis Leslie, Rebecca Frances Cherry, Abbas Mulla, Jean Abbott, Kristin Furfari, Jacqueline J Glover, Benjamin Harnke, Matthew K Wynia

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

8 authors.

Louis LeslieSchool of Medicine, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, CO, USA. louis.fitch@ucdenver.edu.
Rebecca Frances CherryUniversity of Colorado at Denver, Downtown Campus, Denver, CO, USA.
Abbas MullaSchool of Medicine, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, CO, USA.
Jean AbbottCenter for Bioethics and Humanities, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, CO, USA.
Kristin FurfariSchool of Medicine, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, CO, USA.
Jacqueline J GloverCenter for Bioethics and Humanities, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, CO, USA.
Benjamin HarnkeHealth Sciences Library, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, CO, USA.
Matthew K WyniaSchool of Medicine, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, CO, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background"Clinical ethics consultation" (CEC) is the provision of consultative services by an individual or team with the aim of helping health professionals, patients, and their families grapple with difficult ethical issues arising during health care. There are almost 25,000 articles in the worldwide literature on CEC, but very few explicitly address measuring the quality of CEC. Many more address quality implicitly, however. This article describes a rigorous protocol for compiling the diverse literature on CEC, analyzing it with a quality measurement lens, and seeking a set of potential quality domains for CEC based on areas of existing, but hitherto unrecognized, consensus in the literature. METHODS/

designThis mixed-method systematic review will follow a sequential pattern: scoping review, qualitative synthesis, and then a quantitative synthesis. The scoping review will include categorizing all quality measures for CEC discussed in the literature, both quantitative and qualitative. The qualitative synthesis will generate a comprehensive analytic framework for understanding the quality of CEC and is expected to inform the quantitative synthesis, which will be a meta-analysis of studies reporting the effects of CEC on pre-specified clinical outcomes. DISCUSSION: The literature on CEC is broad and diverse and has never been examined with specific regard to quality measurement. We propose a novel mixed-methods approach to compile and synthesize this literature and to derive a framework for assessing quality in CEC. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015023282.

Indexed as

Ethics, ClinicalQuality Assurance, Health CareHumansQualitative ResearchReferral and ConsultationBioethicsClinical ethicsEthics consultationHealth care ethics committeesMixed-methodScoping reviewSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID27267765
PMCPMC4897931

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.