Pullin Andrew S, Cheng Samantha H, Jackson Josephine D'Urban, Eales Jacqualyn, Envall Ida, Fada Salamatu J, Frampton Geoff K, Harper Meagan, Kadykalo Andrew N, Kohl Christian, Konno Ko, Livoreil Barbara, Ouédraogo Dakis-Yaoba, O'Leary Bethan C, Pullin George, Randall Nicola, Rees Rebecca, Smith Adrienne, Sordello Romain, Sterling Eleanor J, Twardek Will M, Woodcock Paul
Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, Conwy, UK.
School of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
Environ Evid. 2022 Apr 19;11(1):16. doi: 10.1186/s13750-022-00269-9.
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.
按照清晰的方法和透明的报告要求，对现有证据进行准确、无偏且简洁的综合，对于支持有效的环境政策和管理决策而言是必要的。没有这一点，对证据的可靠性较低和/或客观性较差的综述可能会为决策提供依据，从而导致无效的、浪费资源的干预措施，并可能产生意外后果。我们评估了2018年至2020年间发表的1000多篇证据综合（综述和概述）的可靠性，这些综合提供了关于人类活动影响或与环境管理相关干预措施有效性的证据。这些综合来自环境证据综述协作数据库（CEEDER），这是一个在线的、免费提供给证据使用者的证据服务平台，它使用一系列已发表的标准来评估证据综合的可靠性。我们发现，大多数综合在透明度、可重复性和潜在偏差方面存在问题。总体而言，我们的结果表明，最近发表的证据综合在为决策提供信息方面可靠性较低。遵循证据综合指导和报告标准的综述评估评级有所提高，但即使在这些综述中，其标准仍存在很大差异。此外，“系统综述”这一意味着符合方法标准的术语经常被滥用。CEEDER项目的一个主要目标是提高全球环境证据综述的可靠性。为此，我们概述了一些免费的在线资源，以帮助改进综述的开展和报告。我们呼吁作者、编辑和同行评审使用这些资源，以确保未来有更可靠的综合。
