How to write a systematic review of reasons
How to write a systematic review of reasons
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/medethics-2011-100096
复制
发表时间：
2012-02-01
影响因子：
4.1
通讯作者：
Sofaer, Neema
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Strech, Daniel;Sofaer, Neema
系统评价是为改善政策制定和临床决策而开发的，它基于对所有相关经验研究的最小偏见评估来回答经验问题。这里提供了一个撰写基于论点的文献的系统回顾的模型：使用论点来解决概念性问题的文献，例如堕胎在道德上是否允许，或者研究参与者是否应该在法律上有权获得与研究相关的伤害的赔偿。此类审查旨在改善医疗保健、研究或政策中与伦理相关的决策。在确定与概念问题有关的原因方面，它们是比非正式审查或文献样本更好的工具，并且能够为合理决策所需的概念和经验研究制定议程。这一模式包括编写系统审查的审查问题和资格标准的处方、相关文献的确定、要提取的关于原因和出版物的数据类型以及结果的推导和列报。本文解释了如何使该模型适用于综述问题、文献综述和目标读者，这些读者可能是决策者，也可能是学者。对模型应用的障碍进行了描述和解决，并指出了模型的局限性。
Systematic reviews, which were developed to improve policy-making and clinical decision-making, answer an empirical question based on a minimally biased appraisal of all the relevant empirical studies. A model is presented here for writing systematic reviews of argument-based literature: literature that uses arguments to address conceptual questions, such as whether abortion is morally permissible or whether research participants should be legally entitled to compensation for sustaining research-related injury. 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.