Value judgments in the analysis and synthesis of evidence

Daniel Strech, Jon C Tilburt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

40 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To describe the principal role of value judgments in the analysis and synthesis of evidence as they are involved in systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology assessments. Method: Using the tools of conceptual analysis, we characterize three main types of value judgments and propose an outline of how to enhance the appropriate role of value judgments in the process of analyzing and synthesizing evidence. Results: The production, analysis, and synthesis of evidence involve value judgments characterized as preferences of persons or groups that cannot be validated by appeal to facts alone. Because preferences across individuals can vary, value judgments can be a source of bias in science and unwarranted variation in the application of scientific evidence. However, it is not possible or desirable to eliminate all value judgments in the process from production to synthesis of evidence. Conclusion: With respect to the value judgments that shape the analysis and synthesis of evidence, review authors should disclose and justify choices related to the three key value judgments outlined in this paper. Authors should also highlight how their value judgments differ from the stated or implicit value judgments of previously published reviews on the same topic.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)521-524
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume61
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2008

Fingerprint

Biomedical Technology Assessment
Meta-Analysis

Keywords

  • Bias
  • Bioethics
  • Evidence-based medicine
  • Systemic reviews
  • Transparency
  • Value judgments

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Epidemiology

Cite this

Value judgments in the analysis and synthesis of evidence. / Strech, Daniel; Tilburt, Jon C.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 61, No. 6, 06.2008, p. 521-524.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{081bd1e3a63f4e478af6aac65f2a4b52,
title = "Value judgments in the analysis and synthesis of evidence",
abstract = "Objective: To describe the principal role of value judgments in the analysis and synthesis of evidence as they are involved in systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology assessments. Method: Using the tools of conceptual analysis, we characterize three main types of value judgments and propose an outline of how to enhance the appropriate role of value judgments in the process of analyzing and synthesizing evidence. Results: The production, analysis, and synthesis of evidence involve value judgments characterized as preferences of persons or groups that cannot be validated by appeal to facts alone. Because preferences across individuals can vary, value judgments can be a source of bias in science and unwarranted variation in the application of scientific evidence. However, it is not possible or desirable to eliminate all value judgments in the process from production to synthesis of evidence. Conclusion: With respect to the value judgments that shape the analysis and synthesis of evidence, review authors should disclose and justify choices related to the three key value judgments outlined in this paper. Authors should also highlight how their value judgments differ from the stated or implicit value judgments of previously published reviews on the same topic.",
keywords = "Bias, Bioethics, Evidence-based medicine, Systemic reviews, Transparency, Value judgments",
author = "Daniel Strech and Tilburt, {Jon C}",
year = "2008",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.01.001",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "61",
pages = "521--524",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Value judgments in the analysis and synthesis of evidence

AU - Strech, Daniel

AU - Tilburt, Jon C

PY - 2008/6

Y1 - 2008/6

N2 - Objective: To describe the principal role of value judgments in the analysis and synthesis of evidence as they are involved in systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology assessments. Method: Using the tools of conceptual analysis, we characterize three main types of value judgments and propose an outline of how to enhance the appropriate role of value judgments in the process of analyzing and synthesizing evidence. Results: The production, analysis, and synthesis of evidence involve value judgments characterized as preferences of persons or groups that cannot be validated by appeal to facts alone. Because preferences across individuals can vary, value judgments can be a source of bias in science and unwarranted variation in the application of scientific evidence. However, it is not possible or desirable to eliminate all value judgments in the process from production to synthesis of evidence. Conclusion: With respect to the value judgments that shape the analysis and synthesis of evidence, review authors should disclose and justify choices related to the three key value judgments outlined in this paper. Authors should also highlight how their value judgments differ from the stated or implicit value judgments of previously published reviews on the same topic.

AB - Objective: To describe the principal role of value judgments in the analysis and synthesis of evidence as they are involved in systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology assessments. Method: Using the tools of conceptual analysis, we characterize three main types of value judgments and propose an outline of how to enhance the appropriate role of value judgments in the process of analyzing and synthesizing evidence. Results: The production, analysis, and synthesis of evidence involve value judgments characterized as preferences of persons or groups that cannot be validated by appeal to facts alone. Because preferences across individuals can vary, value judgments can be a source of bias in science and unwarranted variation in the application of scientific evidence. However, it is not possible or desirable to eliminate all value judgments in the process from production to synthesis of evidence. Conclusion: With respect to the value judgments that shape the analysis and synthesis of evidence, review authors should disclose and justify choices related to the three key value judgments outlined in this paper. Authors should also highlight how their value judgments differ from the stated or implicit value judgments of previously published reviews on the same topic.

KW - Bias

KW - Bioethics

KW - Evidence-based medicine

KW - Systemic reviews

KW - Transparency

KW - Value judgments

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=42949178950&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=42949178950&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.01.001

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.01.001

M3 - Article

C2 - 18471654

AN - SCOPUS:42949178950

VL - 61

SP - 521

EP - 524

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

IS - 6

ER -