How to tackle the conundrum of quality appraisal in systematic reviews of normative literature/information? Analysing the problems of three possible strategies

BMC Medical Ethics 20 (1):1-12 (2019)

Abstract
In the last years, there has been an increase in publication of systematic reviews of normative literature or of normative information 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. However, while there are established methods and standards for appraising e.g. clinical studies or other empirical research, quality appraisal of normative literature 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. The 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.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1186/s12910-019-0423-5
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 46,330
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

How to Write a Systematic Review of Reasons.D. Strech & N. Sofaer - 2012 - Journal of Medical Ethics 38 (2):121-126.

View all 20 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Systematic Reviews in Bioethics: Types, Challenges, and Value.R. Mcdougall - 2014 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39 (1):89-97.
Systematic Reviews of Empirical Bioethics.D. Strech, M. Synofzik & G. Marckmann - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (6):472-477.
How to Write a Systematic Review of Reasons.D. Strech & N. Sofaer - 2012 - Journal of Medical Ethics 38 (2):121-126.
How to Run an Effective Journal Club: A Systematic Review.Y. Deenadayalan, K. Grimmer-Somers, M. Prior & S. Kumar - 2008 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 14 (5):898-911.
Research Into Quality Management and Social Responsibility.Juan José Tarí - 2011 - Journal of Business Ethics 102 (4):623-638.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2019-11-15

Total views
5 ( #1,066,657 of 2,285,998 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #249,472 of 2,285,998 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature