Embedded Files
Appraisal of: What methods do reviews of normative ethics literature use for search, selection, analysis, and synthesis? In-depth results from a systematic review of reviews
Appraisal of: What methods do reviews of normative ethics literature use for search, selection, analysis, and synthesis? In-depth results from a systematic review of reviews
Reviewer(s):
Jennifer Horton
Full Reference:
Mertz M, Strech D, Kahrass H. What methods do reviews of normative ethics literature use for search, selection, analysis, and synthesis? In-depth results from a systematic review of reviews. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):261.
Short description:
The aim of this study was to evaluate how normative ethics “semi-systematic” or systematic reviews are conducted—including search strategy, study selection, quality appraisal, analysis, and synthesis of information. Of the 84 reviews studied, the authors found that though few reviews adhered completely to PRISMA, they found:
Generally reported databases searched (93%) and search strategies (87%); only 31% had a replicable string, and only 29% used a PRISMA chart to indicate a search and screening process. Quality appraisal of retrieved information was not commonly done.
PubMed was used in almost all reviews.
Only 66% of reviews reported what kind of information they extracted from primary studies to analyze/synthesize. A smaller 37% of reviews discussed their information extraction methods.
Though only 60% of reviews included information about synthesis methods, the majority of those that did utilized qualitative methods (83%).
While search methods of normative reviews were not hugely different from those reported in clinical systematic reviews, the authors note that there are particularities in searching for and screening ethics information (interdisciplinarity, ethics information appearing in books). Overall, the authors conclude that more transparent reporting of all steps of ethical analysis methods is necessary to improve understanding, reproducibility, and validity of such reviews.
Limitations stated by the author(s):
Analysis procedure was informed by the authors’ background knowledge, thus it had a risk of being more subjective, though the studies were analyzed by two authors and critically appraised. Due to time constraints, no study was assessed by more than one author (they did not check for inter-rater reliability).
Limitations stated by the reviewer(s):
This study did not search grey literature or consider systematic reviews published by HTA organizations, excluding knowledge syntheses conducted outside published literature.
Study Type:
Systematic review of reviews
Related Chapters:
Ethical Analysis
Tags:
Databases
Designing search strategies: general
Documenting
Ethics
Meta-analysis
Ethical analysis
Normative
Page updated
Report abuse