The CEEDER database of evidence reviews: An open-access evidence service for researchers and decision-makers.

Autor: Konno K; CEE Centre UK, School of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Gwynedd, LL57 2UW, UK., Cheng SH; CEE Centre USA, Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, American Museum of Natural History, New York City, NY, 10012, USA., Eales J; CEE Centre UK, European Centre for Environment and Human Health, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Knowledge Spa, Royal Cornwall Hospital, Truro, Cornwall, TR1 3HD, UK., Frampton G; Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC), Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK., Kohl C; Institute for Biosafety in Plant Biotechnology, Julius Kühn-Institute, Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, Erwin-Baur-Straße 27, Quedlinburg, Germany., Livoreil B; CEE Centre France, Coopaname, Le Luc en Provence, France., Macura B; CEE Centre Sweden, Stockholm Environment Institute, Linnégatan 87D, Stockholm, Sweden., O'Leary BC; Department of Environment and Geography, University of York, YO10 5NG, UK.; School of Science, Engineering and Environment, University of Salford, Manchester, M5 4WX, UK., Randall NP; CEE Centre UK, Centre for Evidence-based Agriculture, Harper Adams University, Newport, Shropshire, TF10 8NB, UK., Taylor JJ; CEE Centre Canada, Canadian Centre for Evidence-based Conservation, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S5B6 Canada., Woodcock P; Joint Nature Conservation Committee, UK., Pullin AS; CEE Centre UK, School of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Gwynedd, LL57 2UW, UK.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Environmental science & policy [Environ Sci Policy] 2020 Dec; Vol. 114, pp. 256-262. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Sep 06.
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2020.08.021
Abstrakt: Evidence-informed decision-making aims to deliver effective actions informed by the best available evidence. Given the large quantity of primary literature, and time constraints faced by policy-makers and practitioners, well-conducted evidence reviews can provide a valuable resource to support decision-making. However, previous research suggests that some evidence reviews may not be sufficiently reliable to inform decisions in the environmental sector due to low standards of conduct and reporting. While some evidence reviews are of high reliability, there is currently no way for policy-makers and practitioners to quickly and easily find them among the many lower reliability ones. Alongside this lack of transparency, there is little incentive or support for review authors, editors and peer-reviewers to improve reliability. To address these issues, we introduce a new online, freely available and first-of-its-kind evidence service: the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Database of Evidence Reviews (CEEDER: www.environmentalevidence.org/ceeder). CEEDER aims to transform communication of evidence review reliability to researchers, policy-makers and practitioners through independent assessment of key aspects of the conduct, reporting and data limitations of available evidence reviews claiming to assess environmental impacts or the effectiveness of interventions relevant to policy and practice. At the same time, CEEDER will provide support to improve the standards of future evidence reviews and support evidence translation and knowledge mobilisation to help inform environmental decision-making.
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
(© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: