title: How to write a systematic review of reasons.
abstract: 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.
authors.affiliation: Centre for Ethics and Law in the Life Sciences, Institute of History, Ethics and Philosophy, Hannover Medical School, Carl Neuberg Strasse 1, Hannover, Germany. strech.daniel@mh-hannover.de
authors.forename: Daniel
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Strech
authors.forename: Neema
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Sofaer
mesh_terms: D006801:Humans; D003657:Decision Making; D011050:Policy Making; D012106:Research / Q000458:organization & administration / Q000592:standards; D012107:Research Design; D014956:Writing; D000078202:Systematic Reviews as Topic
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 18;151(4):264-9, W64
references.pmid: 19622511
references.citation: Qual Health Res. 1998 May;8(3):341-51
references.pmid: 10558335
references.citation: Bioethics. 2012 Jul;26(6):315-28
references.pmid: 21521251
references.citation: J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005 Jan;10(1):45-53
references.pmid: 15667704
references.citation: J Med Philos. 2007 Jan-Feb;32(1):65-76
references.pmid: 17365446
references.citation: BMJ. 1994 Sep 3;309(6954):597-9
references.pmid: 8086953
references.citation: J Med Philos. 2008 Feb;33(1):80-99
references.pmid: 18420552
references.citation: Public Health Ethics. 2011 Jul;4(2):160-184
references.pmid: 21754950
references.citation: Healthc Policy. 2006 Jan;1(2):43-8
references.pmid: 19305652
references.citation: J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005 Jul;10 Suppl 1:6-20
references.pmid: 16053580
references.citation: J Adv Nurs. 2005 Apr;50(2):204-11
references.pmid: 15788085
references.citation: Theor Med Bioeth. 2001 Jun;22(3):151-67
references.pmid: 11499492
references.citation: Health Policy. 2009 May;90(2-3):113-24
references.pmid: 19070396
references.citation: J Med Ethics. 2008 Jun;34(6):472-7
references.pmid: 18511623
references.citation: Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010 Oct;26(4):441-9
references.pmid: 20923585