Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32885402›Full record

ReviewAmbio2021

On the uncertainty and confidence in decision support tools (DSTs) with insights from the Baltic Sea ecosystem.

Floris M van Beest, Henrik Nygård, Vivi Fleming, Jacob Carstensen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ambio, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

4 authors.

Floris M van BeestDepartment of Bioscience, Aarhus University, Frederiksborgvej 399, 4000, Roskilde, Denmark. flbe@bios.au.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5701-4927
Henrik NygårdFinnish Environment Institute SYKE, Marine Research Centre, Latokartanonkaari 11, 00790, Helsinki, Finland.
Vivi FlemingFinnish Environment Institute SYKE, Marine Research Centre, Latokartanonkaari 11, 00790, Helsinki, Finland.
Jacob CarstensenDepartment of Bioscience, Aarhus University, Frederiksborgvej 399, 4000, Roskilde, Denmark.

Funding

BONUS 185
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ecosystems around the world are increasingly exposed to multiple, often interacting human activities, leading to pressures and possibly environmental state changes. Decision support tools (DSTs) can assist environmental managers and policy makers to evaluate the current status of ecosystems (i.e. assessment tools) and the consequences of alternative policies or management scenarios (i.e. planning tools) to make the best possible decision based on prevailing knowledge and uncertainties. However, to be confident in DST outcomes it is imperative that known sources of uncertainty such as sampling and measurement error, model structure, and parameter use are quantified, documented, and addressed throughout the DST set-up, calibration, and validation processes. Here we provide a brief overview of the main sources of uncertainty and methods currently available to quantify uncertainty in DST input and output. We then review 42 existing DSTs that were designed to manage anthropogenic pressures in the Baltic Sea to summarise how and what sources of uncertainties were addressed within planning and assessment tools. Based on our findings, we recommend future DST development to adhere to good modelling practise principles, and to better document and communicate uncertainty among stakeholders.

Indexed as

EcosystemBaltic StatesHumansUncertaintyBaltic SeaConfidenceDecision support toolsUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID32885402
PMCPMC7782639

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.