Systematic reviews of empirical literature on bioethical topics: Results from a meta-review
BackgroundIn bioethics, especially nursing ethics, systematic reviews are increasingly popular. The overall aim of a systematic review is to provide an overview of the published discussions on a specific topic. While a meta-review on systematic reviews on normative bioethical literature has already...
| Authors: | ; ; |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Sage
2020
|
| In: |
Nursing ethics
Year: 2020, Volume: 27, Issue: 4, Pages: 960-978 |
| Further subjects: | B
knowledge syntheses
B empirical ethics B Systematic Review B Bioethics B Empirical Literature |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Summary: | BackgroundIn bioethics, especially nursing ethics, systematic reviews are increasingly popular. The overall aim of a systematic review is to provide an overview of the published discussions on a specific topic. While a meta-review on systematic reviews on normative bioethical literature has already been performed, there is no equivalent for systematic reviews of empirical literature on ethical topics.ObjectiveThis meta-review aims to present the general trends and characteristics of systematic reviews of empirical bioethical literature and to evaluate their reporting quality.Research designLiterature search was performed on PubMed and Google Scholar. Qualitative content analysis and quantitative approaches were used to evaluate the systematic reviews. Characteristics of systematic reviews were extracted and quantitatively analyzed. The reporting quality was measured using an adapted PRISMA checklist.FindingsSeventy-six reviews were selected for analysis. Most reviews came from the field of nursing (next to bioethics and medicine). Selected systematic reviews investigated issues related to clinical ethics (50%), followed by research ethics (36%) and public health ethics or organizational ethics (14%). In all, 72% of the systematic reviews included authors’ ethical reflections on the findings and 59% provided ethical recommendations. Despite the heterogeneous reporting of the reviews, reviews using PRISMA tended to score better regarding reporting quality.DiscussionThe heterogeneity currently observed is due both to the interdisciplinary nature of nursing ethics and bioethics, and to the emerging nature of systematic review methods in these fields. These results confirm the findings of our previous review of systematic reviews on normative literature, thereby highlighting a recurring methodological gap in systematic reviews of bioethical literature. This also indicates the need to develop more robust methodological standards.ConclusionThrough its extensive overview of the characteristics of systematic reviews of empirical literature on ethical topics, this meta-review is expected to inform further discussions on minimal standards and reporting guidelines. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1477-0989 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Nursing ethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1177/0969733020907935 |