Are review articles a reliable source of evidence to support conservation and environmental management? A comparison with medicine
Are review articles a reliable source of evidence to support conservation and environmental management? A comparison with medicine
复制标题
评论文章是支持保护和环境管理的可靠证据来源吗？
DOI：
10.1016/j.biocon.2006.04.034
复制
发表时间：
2006
影响因子：
5.9
通讯作者：
A. Pullin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
P. Roberts;G. Stewart;A. Pullin
审查文章是重要的信息来源，往往也是决策者在养护和环境管理中用来评估干预措施和其他行动的效力和影响的唯一证据来源。医学和公共卫生领域的最新发展建立了“系统审查”指南，以最大限度地减少偏见，并明确记录方法，允许根据进一步的进展进行复制和更新。本文的目的是评估从养护、生态和环境管理学科(称为“生态审查”)进行审查的方法和报告的严谨性。这是通过将它们与医学系统评估进行比较来实现的，使用了27个在医学上很好地建立的详细标准。与医学系统评价相比，生态评价更容易产生偏见，在用于搜索研究的方法上缺乏细节，并且不太可能评估研究的相关性、原始实验的质量和定量综合证据。总体而言，生态审查的质量较低，报告风格和审查方法的差异较大。为了解决这一问题，审查员可以使用系统的审查方法，期刊可以为审查文章的准备和生产提供更明确的指导方针。
Review articles are important sources of information and often the only source of evidence used by decision makers in conservation and environmental management to assess effectiveness and impact of interventions and other actions. Recent developments in the field of medicine and public health have established ‘systematic review’ guidelines to minimise bias and explicitly document methodology, allowing replication and updating in light of further advances. The aim of this article was to assess the methodological and reporting rigour of reviews from the disciplines of conservation, ecology and environmental management (referred to as “ecological reviews”). This was achieved by comparing them to medical systematic reviews, using 27 detailed criteria well established in medicine. When compared with medical systematic reviews, ecological reviews were more likely to be prone to bias, lacking details in the methods used to search for studies, and were less likely to assess the relevance of studies, quality of the original experiments and to quantitatively synthesise the evidence. Overall, ecological reviews show lower quality and greater variation in reporting style and review methods. To address this, reviewers could use a systematic review approach and journals could provide more explicit guidelines for the preparation and production of review articles.