Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31727134›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2019

How to tackle the conundrum of quality appraisal in systematic reviews of normative literature/information? Analysing the problems of three possible strategies (translation of a German paper).

Marcel Mertz

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 17 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 17 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 17 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. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Organoids: a systematic review of ethical issues.Stem cell research & therapy · 2022
    Pooled it
  16. Early-Phase Clinical Trials of Bio-Artificial Organ Technology: A Systematic Review of Ethical Issues.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2022
    Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

1 author.

Marcel MertzWorking Group Research/Public Health Ethics & Methodology, Institute for History, Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, D-30625, Hannover, Germany. mertz.marcel@mh-hannover.de.ORCID 0000-0002-4871-4219

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the last years, there has been an increase in publication of systematic reviews of normative ("argument-based") literature or of normative information (such as ethical issues) in bioethics. The aim of a systematic review is to search, select, analyse and synthesise literature in a transparent and systematic way in order to provide a comprehensive and unbiased overview of the information sought, predominantly as a basis for informed decision-making in health care. Traditionally, one part of the procedure when conducting a systematic review is an appraisal of the quality of the literature that could be included. MAIN TEXT: However, while there are established methods and standards for appraising e.g. clinical studies or other empirical research, quality appraisal of normative literature (or normative information) in the context of a systematic review is still rather a conundrum - not only is it unclear how it could or should be done, but also the question whether it necessarily must be done is not settled yet. Based on a pragmatic definition of "normative literature" as well as on a typology of different types of systematic reviews of normative literature/information, this paper identifies and critically discusses three possible strategies of conducting quality appraisal.

conclusionsThe paper will argue that none of the three strategies is able to provide a general and satisfying solution to the problems associated with quality appraisal of normative literature/information. Still, the discussion of the three strategies allows outlining minimal conditions that elaborated strategies have to meet in future, and facilitates sketching a theoretically and practically promising strategy.

Indexed as

Ethics, ResearchSystematic Reviews as TopicData AccuracyGermanyHumansPeriodicals as TopicBioethicsEvidence-based ethicsMedical ethicsMethodologyNormative informationNormative literatureQuality appraisalSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31727134
PMCPMC6857152

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.