Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32922207›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental science & policy2020

The CEEDER database of evidence reviews: An open-access evidence service for researchers and decision-makers.

Ko Konno, Samantha H Cheng, Jacqualyn Eales, Geoff Frampton, Christian Kohl, Barbara Livoreil, Biljana Macura, Bethan C O'Leary, Nicola P Randall, Jessica J Taylor and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental science & policy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

12 authors.

Ko KonnoCEE Centre UK, School of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Gwynedd, LL57 2UW, UK.
Samantha H ChengCEE Centre USA, Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, American Museum of Natural History, New York City, NY, 10012, USA.
Jacqualyn EalesCEE Centre UK, European Centre for Environment and Human Health, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Knowledge Spa, Royal Cornwall Hospital, Truro, Cornwall, TR1 3HD, UK.
Geoff FramptonSouthampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC), Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
Christian KohlInstitute for Biosafety in Plant Biotechnology, Julius Kühn-Institute, Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, Erwin-Baur-Straße 27, Quedlinburg, Germany.
Barbara LivoreilCEE Centre France, Coopaname, Le Luc en Provence, France.
Biljana MacuraCEE Centre Sweden, Stockholm Environment Institute, Linnégatan 87D, Stockholm, Sweden.
Bethan C O'LearyDepartment of Environment and Geography, University of York, YO10 5NG, UK.
Nicola P RandallCEE Centre UK, Centre for Evidence-based Agriculture, Harper Adams University, Newport, Shropshire, TF10 8NB, UK.
Jessica J TaylorCEE Centre Canada, Canadian Centre for Evidence-based Conservation, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S5B6 Canada.
Paul WoodcockJoint Nature Conservation Committee, UK.
Andrew S PullinCEE Centre UK, School of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Gwynedd, LL57 2UW, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence-informed decision-making aims to deliver effective actions informed by the best available evidence. Given the large quantity of primary literature, and time constraints faced by policy-makers and practitioners, well-conducted evidence reviews can provide a valuable resource to support decision-making. However, previous research suggests that some evidence reviews may not be sufficiently reliable to inform decisions in the environmental sector due to low standards of conduct and reporting. While some evidence reviews are of high reliability, there is currently no way for policy-makers and practitioners to quickly and easily find them among the many lower reliability ones. Alongside this lack of transparency, there is little incentive or support for review authors, editors and peer-reviewers to improve reliability. To address these issues, we introduce a new online, freely available and first-of-its-kind evidence service: the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Database of Evidence Reviews (CEEDER: www.environmentalevidence.org/ceeder). CEEDER aims to transform communication of evidence review reliability to researchers, policy-makers and practitioners through independent assessment of key aspects of the conduct, reporting and data limitations of available evidence reviews claiming to assess environmental impacts or the effectiveness of interventions relevant to policy and practice. At the same time, CEEDER will provide support to improve the standards of future evidence reviews and support evidence translation and knowledge mobilisation to help inform environmental decision-making.

Indexed as

Critical appraisalDecision support toolEvidence-basedEvidence synthesisPolicy makingRisk of bias

Identifiers

PMID32922207
PMCPMC7474817

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.