Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24001025›Full record

SynthesisConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2013

Contribution of systematic reviews to management decisions.

Carly N Cook, Hugh P Possingham, Richard A Fuller

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Language barriers in conservation science citation networks.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Bridging research and practice in conservation.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2021
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Carly N CookQuantitative and Applied Ecology Group, The School of Botany, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, 3010, Australia; School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, 4072, Australia. carly.cook@unimelb.edu.au.
Hugh P Possingham
Richard A Fuller

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Decision MakingConservation of Natural ResourcesEnvironmental PolicyGeographyReview Literature as Topicbrecha de implementaciónconservación basada en evidenciasconservation managementconservation policydecision makingenvironmental evidenceevidence-based conservationevidencia ambientalimplementation gapmanejo de conservaciónpolítica de conservacióntoma de decisiones

Identifiers

PMID24001025
PMCPMC4232040

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.