Evaluating and improving the reliability of evidence syntheses in conservation and environmental science: A methodology
Evaluating and improving the reliability of evidence syntheses in conservation and environmental science: A methodology
复制标题
评估和提高保护和环境科学证据综合的可靠性：一种方法
DOI：
10.1016/j.biocon.2014.04.020
复制
发表时间：
2014
影响因子：
5.9
通讯作者：
Woodcock P
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Woodcock P
保护和环境科学的原始文献数量正在迅速增加。因此，审查和联合收割机结合政策相关问题研究结果的证据综合对于知情决策至关重要。然而，这种综合在行为和报告方面表现出相当大的差异，可能会损害其对决策者的价值。为了解决这个问题，我们开发了一个评分系统-合作环境证据综合评估工具（CEESAT）-使用详细的标准和指导方针，以评估政策相关的综合保护和环境科学。评分越高，综合报告的客观性、全面性和透明度就越高，因此对其可靠性的信心也就越大。然后，我们使用了40篇综述文章来测试CEESAT（i）对不同综合的适用性，（ii）评分的有效性，（iii）区分综合的有效性，以及（iv）不同评估者评分的可重复性。CEESAT适用于36篇文章，评分范围为1 - 33（平均值= 13.2，中位数= 15，最大可能值= 39）。总体分数和个人标准的变化表明，CEESAT有效地区分了合成，使严格性的差异明显。评分是可重复的，表明评估不太容易受到指南应用和解释差异的影响。每个标准的详细原理和指南应有助于改善未来的综合和促进评估员之间的一致评分。此外，非专家可以直接使用分数来比较调查关键保护问题的综合结果，并将可靠性和严谨性纳入决策中。
The volume of primary literature in conservation and environmental science is expanding rapidly. Evidence syntheses that review and combine the findings from research on policy-relevant questions are therefore vital for informing decision-making. However, such syntheses exhibit considerable variation in conduct and reporting, potentially undermining their value to decision-makers. To address this problem, we developed a scoring system – the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Synthesis Assessment Tool (CEESAT) – that uses detailed criteria and guidelines to evaluate policy-relevant syntheses in conservation and environmental science. The higher the score awarded, the greater the objectivity, comprehensiveness and transparency of the synthesis, hence the greater the confidence in its reliability. We then used 40 review articles to test CEESAT in terms of (i) applicability to different syntheses, (ii) validity of scores awarded, (iii) effectiveness at discriminating between syntheses, and (iv) repeatability of scoring by different assessors. CEESAT was applicable to 36 articles, and scores ranged from 1 to 33 (mean = 13.2, median = 15, maximum possible = 39). Variation in overall scores and in the individual criteria shows that CEESAT discriminates effectively among syntheses, making differences in rigour clear. Scoring was repeatable, indicating that assessments are not overly susceptible to differences in the application and interpretation of guidelines. The detailed rationale and guidelines for each criterion should help improve future syntheses and promote consistent scoring between assessors. Furthermore, scores can be used directly by non-specialists to compare syntheses that investigate key conservation questions and to incorporate reliability and rigour into decision-making.
登录
查看更多内容
应对海洋保护区荟萃分析中的发表偏差
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
B. Huntington
通讯作者：
B. Huntington
影响因子：
7.2
作者：
Burda, Brittany U.;Norris, Susan L.;Smith, M. E. Beth
通讯作者：
Smith, M. E. Beth
菲律宾海洋保护区珊瑚礁鱼类种群变化的轨迹和幅度：荟萃分析
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
R. J. Maliao;Alan T. White;A. Maypa;R. Turingan
通讯作者：
R. Turingan
影响因子：
3.3
作者：
A. Pullin;T. Knight
通讯作者：
T. Knight
评论文章是支持保护和环境管理的可靠证据来源吗？
影响因子：
5.9
作者：
P. Roberts;G. Stewart;A. Pullin
通讯作者：
A. Pullin