SynthesisBMC medicine2016
Current state of ethics literature synthesis: a systematic review of reviews.
Synthesis in BMC medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
35 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Telehealth in palliative care settings: A systematic review of argument-based ethics literature.Palliative medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Social justice for adults with high body weight: a systematic review.International journal for equity in health · 2026Pooled it
- The use of social media in social care: a systematic review of the argument-based ethics literature.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2025Pooled it
- Ethical challenges in conducting maternal-fetal surgery trials. A systematic review.Pediatric research · 2025Pooled it
- A systematic qualitative review of ethical issues in open label placebo in published research.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- The concept of intersectionality in bioethics: a systematic review.BMC medical ethics · 2024Pooled it
- Mass drug administration for neglected tropical disease control and elimination: a systematic review of ethical reasons.BMJ global health · 2024Pooled it
- The Ethical Implications of Tissue Engineering for Regenerative Purposes: A Systematic Review.Tissue engineering. Part B, Reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Organoids: a systematic review of ethical issues.Stem cell research & therapy · 2022Pooled it
- Which Framework to Use? A Systematic Review of Ethical Frameworks for the Screening or Evaluation of Health Technology Innovations.Science and engineering ethics · 2022Pooled it
- The full spectrum of ethical issues in pediatric genome-wide sequencing: a systematic qualitative review.BMC pediatrics · 2021Pooled it
- Ethical Principles, Constraints and Opportunities in Clinical Proteomics.Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2021Pooled it
- Relational autonomy: what does it mean and how is it used in end-of-life care? A systematic review of argument-based ethics literature.BMC medical ethics · 2019Pooled it
- What methods do reviews of normative ethics literature use for search, selection, analysis, and synthesis? In-depth results from a systematic review of reviews.Systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Ethical issues in obesity prevention for school children: a systematic qualitative review.International journal of public health · 2017Pooled it
- Ethical issues associated with assistive technologies for persons living with dementia and their caregivers - An overview of reviews.Dementia (London, England) · 2026Review
- A normativity mapping review on end-of-life care in long-term care institutions by authors from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2025Review
- Unpacking the ethics of using AI in primary and secondary education: a systematic literature review.AI and ethics · 2025Article
- Ethics domains in full health technology assessment reports: an attempt to begin mapping the field.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Article
- Embedded Ethics in Practice: A Toolbox for Integrating the Analysis of Ethical and Social Issues into Healthcare AI Research.Science and engineering ethics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundModern 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.
methodsA 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.
resultsWe 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.
conclusionsWhile 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.