Centre for Ethics and Law in the Life Sciences, Institute of History, Ethics and Philosophy, Hannover Medical School, Carl Neuberg Strasse 1, Hannover, Germany.
J Med Ethics. 2012 Feb;38(2):121-6. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2011-100096. Epub 2011 Nov 11.
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.
系统评价旨在基于对所有相关实证研究的无偏评估来回答基于经验的问题，以改善决策制定和临床决策。这里提出了一个用于撰写基于论证文献的系统评价的模型：这种文献使用论证来解决概念性问题，例如堕胎在道德上是否允许，或者研究参与者是否应该依法有权因遭受与研究相关的伤害而获得赔偿。此类综述旨在改善医疗保健、研究或政策中与伦理相关的决策。与非正式综述或文献样本相比，它们是更好的工具，因为它们可以识别与概念问题相关的原因，并且可以为制定合理政策所需的概念和经验研究设定议程。该模型包括撰写系统评价的审查问题和资格标准、确定相关文献、提取有关原因和出版物的数据类型，以及推导和呈现结果的规定。本文解释了如何根据审查问题、综述的文献和预期读者（决策者或学者）来调整该模型。描述并解决了模型应用的障碍，并确定了模型的局限性。
