Skip to main content
Download PDF

Correction: What can the citations of systematic reviews of ethical literature tell us about their use?—an explorative empirical analysis of 31 reviews

Systematic Reviews volume 12, Article number: 206 (2023) Cite this article

The Original Article was published on 23 September 2023

Correction: Syst Rev 12, 173 (2023)

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02341-y

Following publication of the original article [1], the author reported that the abstract and keywords were missing.

Abstract

Background Systematic reviews of ethical literature (SREL) aim at providing an overview of ethical issues, arguments, or concepts on a specific ethical topic. As SREL are becoming more common, their methodology and possible impact are increasingly subjected to critical considerations. Because they analyse and synthetise normative literature, SREL are likely to be used differently than typical systematic reviews. Still, the uses and the expected purposes of SREL were, to date, mainly theoretically discussed. Our explorative study aimed at gaining preliminary empirical insights into the actual uses of SREL.

Methods Citations of SREL in publications, both scientific and non-scientific, were taken as proxy for SREL uses. The citations of 31 published SREL were systematically searched on Google Scholar. Each citation was qualitatively analysed to determine its function. The resulting categorisation of SREL citations was further quantitatively investigated to unveil possible trends.

Results The analysis of the resulting sample of SREL citations (n = 1812) showed that the selected SREL were mostly cited to support claims about ethical issues, arguments, or concepts, but also to merely mention the existence of literature on a given topic. In this sample, SREL were cited predominantly within empirical publications in journals from various academic fields, indicating a broad, field-independent use of such systematic reviews. The selected SREL were also used as methodological orientations either for the conduct of SREL or for the practical and ethically sensitive conduct of empirical studies.

Conclusions In our sample, SREL were rarely used to develop guidelines or to derive ethical recommendations, as it is often postulated in the theoretical literature. The findings of this study constitute a valuable preliminary empirical input in the current methodological debate on SREL and could contribute to developing strategies to align expected purposes with actual uses of SREL.

Keywords

Systematic review, literature review, meta-research, ethics, citation practice

The original article [1] has been corrected.

Reference

  1. Nobile H, Moshtaghin NLR, Lüddecke Z, et al. What can the citations of systematic reviews of ethical literature tell us about their use?—an explorative empirical analysis of 31 reviews. Syst Rev. 2023;12:173. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02341-y.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Hélène Nobile and Natali Lilie Randjbar Moshtaghin shared first authorship.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Ethics, History and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany

    Hélène Nobile, Natali Lilie Randjbar Moshtaghin, Antje Schnarr & Marcel Mertz

  2. Institute for the History of Medicine and Medical Ethics, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, University of Cologne, Joseph-Stelzmann-Str. 20, Geb. 42, 50931, Cologne, Germany

    Zoë Lüddecke

Authors
  1. Hélène Nobile
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Natali Lilie Randjbar Moshtaghin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zoë Lüddecke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Antje Schnarr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marcel Mertz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hélène Nobile.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nobile, H., Moshtaghin, N.L.R., Lüddecke, Z. et al. Correction: What can the citations of systematic reviews of ethical literature tell us about their use?—an explorative empirical analysis of 31 reviews. Syst Rev 12, 206 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02368-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02368-1

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053