SynthesisConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2013
Contribution of systematic reviews to management decisions.
Synthesis in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of Recreation on Animals Revealed as Widespread through a Global Systematic Review.PloS one · 2016Pooled it
- Assessing the effectiveness of ontology-grounded AI term extraction using OntoGPT for environmental evidence synthesis.Environmental evidence · 2026Article
- Language barriers in conservation science citation networks.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
- What is the Price of Conservation? A Review of the Status Quo and Recommendations for Improving Cost Reporting.Bioscience · 2022Article
- Bridging research and practice in conservation.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2021Review
- Dynamic meta-analysis: a method of using global evidence for local decision making.BMC biology · 2021Article
- The CEEDER database of evidence reviews: An open-access evidence service for researchers and decision-makers.Environmental science & policy · 2020Article
- Integrating physiological data with the conservation and management of fishes: a meta-analytical review using the threatened green sturgeon (Conservation physiology · 2019Article
- Antarctica and the strategic plan for biodiversity.PLoS biology · 2017Article
- Reptiles of Chubut province, Argentina: richness, diversity, conservation status and geographic distribution maps.ZooKeys · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Systematic reviews comprehensively summarize evidence about the effectiveness of conservation interventions. We investigated the contribution to management decisions made by this growing body of literature. We identified 43 systematic reviews of conservation evidence, 23 of which drew some concrete conclusions relevant to management. Most reviews addressed conservation interventions relevant to policy decisions; only 35% considered practical on-the-ground management interventions. The majority of reviews covered only a small fraction of the geographic and taxonomic breadth they aimed to address (median = 13% of relevant countries and 16% of relevant taxa). The likelihood that reviews contained at least some implications for management tended to increase as geographic coverage increased and to decline as taxonomic breadth increased. These results suggest the breadth of a systematic review requires careful consideration. Reviews identified a mean of 312 relevant primary studies but excluded 88% of these because of deficiencies in design or a failure to meet other inclusion criteria. Reviews summarized on average 284 data sets and 112 years of research activity, yet the likelihood that their results had at least some implications for management did not increase as the amount of primary research summarized increased. In some cases, conclusions were elusive despite the inclusion of hundreds of data sets and years of cumulative research activity. Systematic reviews are an important part of the conservation decision making tool kit, although we believe the benefits of systematic reviews could be significantly enhanced by increasing the number of reviews focused on questions of direct relevance to on-the-ground managers; defining a more focused geographic and taxonomic breadth that better reflects available data; including a broader range of evidence types; and appraising the cost-effectiveness of interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.