Cited by 75Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsClinical practice guidelines implementationEthics and bioethics in healthcare

How to tackle the conundrum of quality appraisal in systematic reviews of normative literature/information? Analysing the problems of three possible strategies (translation of a German paper)

Open access
Mertz, Marcel·2019·BMC Medical Ethics

Abstract

Background: In the last years, there has been an increase in publication of systematic reviews of normative (“argument-based”) literature or of normative information (such as ethical issues) 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. Main text: However, while there are established methods and standards for appraising e.g. clinical studies or other empirical research, quality appraisal of normative literature (or normative information) 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. Conclusions: 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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12910-019-0423-5

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [23]Boland A Cherry MG Dickson R Editors. Doing a systematic review. A student’s guide 2014 Los Angeles SAGE Publications Ltd.
  2. [42]Sulmasy DP Sugarman J Sulmasy DP Reading the medical ethics literature: a discourse on method Methods in medical ethics 2001 Washington D.C Georgetown University Press 286 297
  3. [44]Fischer K Und S Fischer K Parthey H kognitive Aspekte des Peer Review-Verfahrens Evaluation wissenschaftlicher Institutionen. Wissenschaftsforschung Jahrbuch 2003 2011 Berlin Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftsforschung 23 62

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mertz, M.
Affiliations
Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (DE)
Corresponding author
Mertz, Marcel
Venue
BMC Medical Ethics
Published
2019-11-14
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
81-81
ISSN
1472-6939 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2983734199
Cited by
75
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4
FWCI
1.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Ethics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
Keywords
quality assessment, systematic reviews, normative information, bioethics, ethical considerations, informed decision-making
MeSH terms
Data Accuracy, Systematic Reviews as Topic, Germany, Humans, Periodicals as Topic, Ethics, Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review