Skip to main content

Table 1 Types of SRs of normative literature/normative information

From: How to tackle the conundrum of quality appraisal in systematic reviews of normative literature/information? Analysing the problems of three possible strategies (translation of a German paper)

Type

Explanations

Examples in the literature

SRs of ethical conclusions

Only the “all things considered” conclusions of ethically relevant arguments on a certain topic (e.g. on concealing the administration of drugs)

[25, 31]

SRs of ethical arguments

Ethically relevant arguments (or reasons) concerning a certain topic (e.g. whether post-trial access is a moral requirement in drug trials)

[15, 17]

SRs of ethical issues

Ethical issues to be considered, e.g. when treating medical conditions (e.g. dementia) or when using new technologies (e.g. assistive technologies for elderly patients)

[33]

SRs of ethical concepts

Ethically relevant definitions (e.g. “moral distress”) and concepts/approaches (e.g. “nursing ethics”)

[16, 35]

SRs of ethical values/norms/principles/

Values, norms and principles concerning certain possible courses of action and (clinical) fields of action (e.g. in plastic surgery)

[36, 37]

SRs of ethical recommendations

Recommendations from guidelines, handouts, commentaries issued by ethics councils/ethics commissions etc. (e.g. on the question of whether underage persons can be living donors)

[38, 39]