Standards of conduct and reporting in evidence syntheses that could inform environmental policy and management decisions.

Autor: Pullin AS; Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, Conwy, UK. a.s.pullin@bangor.ac.uk.; School of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK. a.s.pullin@bangor.ac.uk., Cheng SH; Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA., Jackson JD; Natural Resources Wales, Cambria House, 29 Newport Rd, Cardiff, CF24 0TP, UK., Eales J; European Centre for Environment and Human Health, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Knowledge Spa, Truro, TR1 3HD, UK., Envall I; The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning, Formas, Stockholm, Sweden., Fada SJ; Bangor University, Bangor, UK.; University of Jos, Jos, Nigeria., Frampton GK; Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK., Harper M; Canadian Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation, Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada., Kadykalo AN; Canadian Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation, Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada., Kohl C; Julius Kühn Institute (JKI), Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, Institute for Biosafety in Plant Biotechnology (SB), Quedlinburg, Germany., Konno K; School of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK., Livoreil B; 30 rue Lamartine, 83340, Le Luc, France., Ouédraogo DY; Direction de L'Expertise, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle (MNHN), 75005, Paris, France., O'Leary BC; Centre for Ecology & Conservation, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Penryn, UK.; Department of Environment and Geography, University of York, York, UK., Pullin G; University of York, York, UK., Randall N; Centre for Evidence Based Agriculture, Harper Adams University, Newport, UK., Rees R; EPPI-Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, UK., Smith A; Canadian Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada., Sordello R; UMS PatriNat OFB-CNRS-MNHN, Paris, France., Sterling EJ; Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY, 10024, USA., Twardek WM; Fish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Lab, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr, Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6, Canada., Woodcock P; Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Monkstone House, Peterborough, PE1 1JY, UK.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Environmental evidence [Environ Evid] 2022 Apr 19; Vol. 11 (1), pp. 16. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 Apr 19.
DOI: 10.1186/s13750-022-00269-9
Abstrakt: Accurate, unbiased and concise synthesis of available evidence following clear methodology and transparent reporting is necessary to support effective environmental policy and management decisions. Without this, less reliable and/or less objective reviews of evidence could inform decision making, leading to ineffective, resource wasteful interventions with potential for unintended consequences. We evaluated the reliability of over 1000 evidence syntheses (reviews and overviews) published between 2018 and 2020 that provide evidence on the impacts of human activities or effectiveness of interventions relevant to environmental management. The syntheses are drawn from the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Database of Evidence Reviews (CEEDER), an online, freely available evidence service for evidence users that assesses the reliability of evidence syntheses using a series of published criteria. We found that the majority of syntheses have problems with transparency, replicability and potential for bias. Overall, our results suggest that most recently published evidence syntheses are of low reliability to inform decision making. Reviews that followed guidance and reporting standards for evidence synthesis had improved assessment ratings, but there remains substantial variation in the standard of reviews amongst even these. Furthermore, the term 'systematic review', which implies conformity with a methodological standard, was frequently misused. A major objective of the CEEDER project is to improve the reliability of the global body of environmental evidence reviews. To this end we outline freely available online resources to help improve review conduct and reporting. We call on authors, editors and peer reviewers to use these resources to ensure more reliable syntheses in the future.
(© 2022. The Author(s).)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: