Bridget Pratt and Adrian Harper ( 2021) conducted a comparison of articles identified through six electronic literature searches. Their aim was to “identify ethics literature… that discussed combatting neo-colonial models of research”. They used manifest content analysis to compare the conceptual content of articles from the fields of global health (GH) and Australian Aboriginal health (AH). This innovative application of a literature review approach from literary and media studies, to health sciences in which literature reviews have traditionally focused on synthesizing evidence about intervention effectiveness, should be commended. It has potential to advance theoretical understandings of ethics in health research. However, I argue here that Pratt and Harper’s (2021) search strategy has several weaknesses, which suggests that their results must be interpreted with caution.

Bridget Pratt 和 Adrian Harper (2021) 对通过六次电子文献搜索确定的文章进行了比较。他们的目标是“确定伦理文献……讨论与新殖民主义研究模式作斗争”。他们使用清单内容分析来比较来自全球健康 (GH) 和澳大利亚原住民健康 (AH) 领域的文章的概念内容。这种从文学和媒体研究到文学评论传统上侧重于综合干预有效性证据的健康科学的文学评论方法的创新应用应该受到赞扬。它有可能促进对健康研究伦理的理论理解。但是，我在此争辩说，普拉特和哈珀 (2021) 的搜索策略有几个弱点，