Abstract
Background Systematic reviews (SR) are well elaborated and established for synthesizing statistical information, for example of clinical studies, for determining whether a clinical intervention is effective. SRs are also becoming more and more popular in bioethics. However, the established approach of conducting and reporting cannot be transferred to SRs on ethically sensible questions directly. This is because the object of investigation is not statistical information, but conceptual or normative information, e.g. ethical norms, principles, arguments or conclusions. There is evidence that the quality of reporting of SRs on ethics literature could be improved in many regards. Although insufficient reporting is not a problem specific to bioethics, as poorly reported manuscripts are also very common in SRs in e.g. medicine, authors of such SRs have the possibility to follow existing reporting guidelines (e.g. PRISMA). Method An international group of authors with years of experience in conducting and reviewing SRs on ethics literature developed a reporting guideline for this specific area of application (RESERVE). The relevant background was provided by two reporting guidelines: PRISMA for systematic reviews and ENTREQ due to the importance of qualitative research approaches. Results RESERVE has 22 items and is intended to provide authors of SRs on ethics literature with all information necessary for an adequate reporting. It also allows readers, reviewers and journal editors critically evaluating the presented results and conclusions made. In this paper, we explain the rationale and give examples for each item. Conclusions While we acknowledge heterogeneity on how to conduct a SR on ethics literature, we still maintain that there is a need for general reporting standards for improving transparency, understandability and verifiability. We invite authors of SRs on ethics literature to test and evaluate the usefulness of RESERVE. We hope for a critical discussion of the guideline and welcome its broad implementation.
Reference79 articles.
1. Disability, Human Rights, and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health: Systematic Review.;M Aluas;Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil.,2012
2. Fallacious, misleading and unhelpful: The case for removing ‘systematic review’ from bioethics nomenclature.;G Birchley;Bioethics.,2022
3. Scoping review on interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research.;D Blanco;BMJ Open.,2019
4. Reporting of Financial and Non-financial Conflicts of Interest in Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research: A Cross Sectional Survey.;L Bou-Karroum;Int. J. Health Policy Manag.,2018
5. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment in clinical trials: a systematic review of guidance for trial protocol writers.;M Calvert;PLoS One.,2014