Literature DB >> 15507927

Argument-based medical ethics: a formal tool for critically appraising the normative medical ethics literature.

Laurence B McCullough1, John H Coverdale, Frank A Chervenak.   

Abstract

Although there are critical appraisal tools for other genres of the medical literature, there currently is no formal tool for physicians to use in their critical appraisal of the normative medical ethics literature. We present a formal assessment tool for the critical appraisal of the normative medical ethics literature that incorporates the intellectual standards of argument-based medical ethics and evidence-based medicine. We draw on the intellectual standards of argument-based ethics, ethical analysis and argument, and the literature on evidence-based medicine. The tool involves 4 questions about normative medical ethics papers: (1) Does the article address a focused ethics question? (2) Are the arguments that support the results of the article valid? (3) What are the results? (4) Will the results help me in clinical practice? Obstetrician-gynecologists can use this tool to appraise the normative literature of ethics in obstetrics and gynecology formally.

Keywords:  Analytical Approach; Bioethics and Professional Ethics

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15507927     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.06.060

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  13 in total

1.  Conscientious objection in medicine: author did not meet standards of argument based ethics.

Authors:  Frank A Chervenak; Laurence B McCullough
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-02-18

Review 2.  Global report on preterm birth and stillbirth (6 of 7): ethical considerations.

Authors:  Maureen Kelley; Craig E Rubens
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2010-02-23       Impact factor: 3.007

3.  Consensus in Guidelines for Evaluation of DSD by the Texas Children's Hospital Multidisciplinary Gender Medicine Team.

Authors:  Ganka Douglas; Marni E Axelrad; Mary L Brandt; Elizabeth Crabtree; Jennifer E Dietrich; Shannon French; Sheila Gunn; Lefkothea Karaviti; Monica E Lopez; Charles G Macias; Laurence B McCullough; Deepa Suresh; V Reid Sutton
Journal:  Int J Pediatr Endocrinol       Date:  2010-10-17

4.  Reasons Why Post-Trial Access to Trial Drugs Should, or Need not be Ensured to Research Participants: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Neema Sofaer; Daniel Strech
Journal:  Public Health Ethics       Date:  2011-07-11       Impact factor: 1.940

5.  Did we describe what you meant? Findings and methodological discussion of an empirical validation study for a systematic review of reasons.

Authors:  Marcel Mertz; Neema Sofaer; Daniel Strech
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2014-09-27       Impact factor: 2.652

6.  Systematic and transparent inclusion of ethical issues and recommendations in clinical practice guidelines: a six-step approach.

Authors:  Marcel Mertz; Daniel Strech
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2014-12-04       Impact factor: 7.327

7.  A systematic review of the literature on ethical aspects of transitional care between child- and adult-orientated health services.

Authors:  Moli Paul; Lesley O'Hara; Priya Tah; Cathy Street; Athanasios Maras; Diane Purper Ouakil; Paramala Santosh; Giulia Signorini; Swaran Preet Singh; Helena Tuomainen; Fiona McNicholas
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2018-07-18       Impact factor: 2.652

8.  Steps toward improving ethical evaluation in health technology assessment: a proposed framework.

Authors:  Nazila Assasi; Jean-Eric Tarride; Daria O'Reilly; Lisa Schwartz
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2016-06-06       Impact factor: 2.652

Review 9.  Current state of ethics literature synthesis: a systematic review of reviews.

Authors:  Marcel Mertz; Hannes Kahrass; Daniel Strech
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2016-10-03       Impact factor: 8.775

10.  In pursuit of goodness in bioethics: analysis of an exemplary article.

Authors:  Bjørn Hofmann; Morten Magelssen
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2018-06-15       Impact factor: 2.652

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.