Systematic reviews of empirical literature on bioethical topics: Results from a meta-review

7Citations
Citations of this article
65Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: In 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. Objective: This meta-review aims to present the general trends and characteristics of systematic reviews of empirical bioethical literature and to evaluate their reporting quality. Research design: Literature 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. Findings: Seventy-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. Discussion: The 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. Conclusion: Through 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.

References Powered by Scopus

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement

53020Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups

23548Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series

17972Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Ethical Principles, Constraints, and Opportunities in Clinical Proteomics

38Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Where Are Smart Cities Heading? A Meta-Review and Guidelines for Future Research

28Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

What can the citations of systematic reviews of ethical literature tell us about their use?—an explorative empirical analysis of 31 reviews

2Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Mertz, M., Nobile, H., & Kahrass, H. (2020, June 1). Systematic reviews of empirical literature on bioethical topics: Results from a meta-review. Nursing Ethics. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733020907935

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 16

57%

Researcher 8

29%

Lecturer / Post doc 3

11%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

4%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 12

46%

Nursing and Health Professions 6

23%

Social Sciences 4

15%

Business, Management and Accounting 4

15%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free