Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32611436›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2020

Evaluating assessment tools of the quality of clinical ethics consultations: a systematic scoping review from 1992 to 2019.

Nicholas Yue Shuen Yoon, Yun Ting Ong, Hong Wei Yap, Kuang Teck Tay, Elijah Gin Lim, Clarissa Wei Shuen Cheong, Wei Qiang Lim, Annelissa Mien Chew Chin, Ying Pin Toh, Min Chiam and 2 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Case-Based Clinical Ethics Support - A Description and Normative Discussion of Methodological Issues from the Swedish Perspective.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2026
    Article
  2. Hidden Dimensions in Clinical Ethics Consultation.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Clinical Ethics Consultations and the Necessity of NOT Meeting Expectations: I Never Promised You a Rose Garden.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

12 authors.

Nicholas Yue Shuen YoonDivision of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Level 4, 11 Hospital Drive, Singapore, 169610, Singapore.
Yun Ting OngDivision of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Level 4, 11 Hospital Drive, Singapore, 169610, Singapore.
Hong Wei YapDivision of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Level 4, 11 Hospital Drive, Singapore, 169610, Singapore.
Kuang Teck TayDivision of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Level 4, 11 Hospital Drive, Singapore, 169610, Singapore.
Elijah Gin LimDivision of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Level 4, 11 Hospital Drive, Singapore, 169610, Singapore.
Clarissa Wei Shuen CheongDivision of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Level 4, 11 Hospital Drive, Singapore, 169610, Singapore.
Wei Qiang LimDivision of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Level 4, 11 Hospital Drive, Singapore, 169610, Singapore.
Annelissa Mien Chew ChinMedical Library, National University of Singapore Libraries, National University of Singapore, Blk MD6, Centre, 14 Medical Dr, #05-01 for Translational Medicine, Singapore, 117599, Singapore.
Ying Pin TohDepartment of Family Medicine, National University Health System, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119074, Singapore.
Min ChiamDivision of Cancer Education, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Level 4, 11 Hospital Drive, Singapore, 169610, Singapore.
Stephen MasonPalliative Care Institute Liverpool, Academic Palliative & End of Life Care Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Lalit Kumar Radha KrishnaDivision of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Level 4, 11 Hospital Drive, Singapore, 169610, Singapore. Lalit.Radha-Krishna@liverpool.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-7350-8644

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAmidst expanding roles in education and policy making, questions have been raised about the ability of Clinical Ethics Committees (CEC) s to carry out effective ethics consultations (CECons). However recent reviews of CECs suggest that there is no uniformity to CECons and no effective means of assessing the quality of CECons. To address this gap a systematic scoping review of prevailing tools used to assess CECons was performed to foreground and guide the design of a tool to evaluate the quality of CECons.

methodsGuided by Levac et al's (2010) methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews, the research team performed independent literature reviews of accounts of assessments of CECons published in six databases. The included articles were independently analyzed using content and thematic analysis to enhance the validity of the findings.

resultsNine thousand sixty-six abstracts were identified, 617 full-text articles were reviewed, 104 articles were analyzed and four themes were identified - the purpose of the CECons evaluation, the various domains assessed, the methods of assessment used and the long-term impact of these evaluations.

conclusionThis review found prevailing assessments of CECons to be piecemeal due to variable goals, contextual factors and practical limitations. The diversity in domains assessed and tools used foregrounds the lack of minimum standards upheld to ensure baseline efficacy. To advance a contextually appropriate, culturally sensitive, program specific assessment tool to assess CECons, clear structural and competency guidelines must be established in the curation of CECons programs, to evaluate their true efficacy and maintain clinical, legal and ethical standards.

Indexed as

Ethics ConsultationEthics, ClinicalEthics Committees, ClinicalHumansCECsClinical ethicsClinical ethics committeesClinical ethics consultationsMedical ethics

Identifiers

PMID32611436
PMCPMC7329412

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.