It explains the background to these methodologies, what is involved, and how to get started, keep going, and finish!
A model is presented here for writing systematic reviews of argument-based literature: Such reviews aim to improve ethically relevant decisions in healthcare, research or policy. They are better tools than informal reviews or samples of literature with respect to the identification of the reasons relevant to a conceptual question, and they enable the setting of agendas for conceptual and empirical research necessary for sound policy-making.
This model comprises prescriptions for writing the systematic review's review question and eligibility criteria, the identification of the relevant literature, the type of data to extract on reasons and publications, and the derivation and presentation of results.
This paper explains how to adapt the model to the review question, literature reviewed and intended readers, who may be decision-makers or academics. Obstacles to the model's application are described and addressed, and limitations of the model are identified.
Such reviews emerged in the s in social science and were developed to a high level of sophistication in medicine and epidemiology. The literature that addresses questions in these fields is large and of varying quality; some is difficult to retrieve.
Policy-makers and professionals in healthcare and research may lack the time or skills to collect, appraise and synthesise all the relevant literature.
Systematic reviews undertake this substantial task and answer the question in a form accessible to decision-makers. The point of the process's systematic nature is to collect all the relevant literature and to minimise bias in characterising it.
Box 1 Four steps for writing a systematic review Formulate the review question and eligibility criteria. Identify all of the literature that meets the eligibility criteria. Extract and synthesise data.
Derive and present results: The genre was subsequently transferred to qualitative research and the overlapping and burgeoning field of empirical bioethics, which uses empirical frequently qualitative studies to answer empirical questions relevant to bioethics.
Some have recently advocated applying the genre to argument-based literature in clinical and research ethics, and in bioethics generally, again to improve decision-making, and there have been two such applications.
We agree with McCullough et al 9 that clinicians could benefit from systematic reviews of clinical ethics literature. However, as we argue at length elsewhere, there is a need for a much more sweeping adaptation of the systematic review technique, and engagement with the many technical and conceptual issues, for such reviews to accomplish their goals in clinical and policy decision-making.
Their review of a seven-article literature addresses the following question: Regarding step 4, they consider that the answer to the review question is the answer most commonly given by the included publications, when greater weight is given to answers based on higher-scoring reasoning.
We call their outline model for writing systematic reviews a systematic review of quality-weighted conclusions. In these cases, the literature's answer to the review question places no burden of proof on those who disagree.
Of course, when an empirical literature is inadequate, its answer will also be potentially misleading and uninteresting; the correct safeguard in both cases inadequate empirical and reason-based literatures is for the review to conclude only that further research is needed to answer the question.
To date, however, the assessment of the quality of reasons and of argument-based literature is much less standardised than, for example, the assessment of the quality of clinical trials and the literature that reports their results. Bioethicists as well as clinical and policy decision-makers are less likely, we surmise, to understand the significance of limitations in reasoning than in study design.
A McCullough model systematic review, insofar as it is a systematic review of quality-weighted conclusions, also has normative problems: Our alternative model for writing systematic reviews of argument-based literature proposes that the review question should be not an ethical question but the factual question of which reasons have been given when discussing the ethical question and how they have been used.
Our pilot systematic review addressed the question:Systematic reviews conducted in this fashion can be used as a higher form of current concepts or as review articles and replace the traditional expert opinion narrative review.
Read more Article. Systematic Review Protocol & Support Template This template is primarily intended to help you plan your review in a systematic way.
A copy of this completed form will be available via the intranet to help others carrying out reviews in the future and to. 2! How to write a systematic literature review: a guide for medical students Why write a systematic review?
When faced with any question, being able to conduct a robust systematic review of the. Systematic reviews traditionally answer an empirical question based on an unbiased assessment of all the empirical studies that address it.
Such reviews emerged in the s in social science and were developed to a high level of sophistication in medicine and epidemiology.
To that end, if studies are dissimilar, precluding a fects The aims of a systematic review can be varied and metaanalysis, a descriptive summary of the studies in a include: (1) clarifying the relative strengths and weak- systematic review should be performed.
This guide deals with how to write a systematic review.
Systematic reviews have become popular over the last 20 years or so, particularly in health and healthcare related areas.