ArticleNature communications2020
Quantifying and addressing the prevalence and bias of study designs in the environmental and social sciences.
Article in Nature communications, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The evidence base for ranger patrol effectiveness in conservation and how to improve it.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026Pooled it
- Systematic review of conservation interventions to promote voluntary behavior change.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2023Pooled it
- Quantifying research waste in ecology.Nature ecology & evolution · 2022Pooled it
- Global conservation additionality hindered by persisting fishing pressure in marine protected areas.Science advances · 2026Article
- The Ocean Equity Index.Nature · 2026Article
- Robust inference and errors in studies of wildlife control.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The global human impact on biodiversity.Nature · 2025Article
- Challenges in assessing the effects of environmental governance systems on conservation outcomes.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Review
- Article
- Article
- Sleep Disorders in Connective Tissue Diseases-Coexisting Diseases or Disease Components?Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Robust language-based mental health assessments in time and space through social media.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- Supplementing honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) colonies with pollen increases their pollinating activity on nectariferous crops with anthers isolated from stigmas.Journal of economic entomology · 2024Article
- Restoration of forestry-drained boreal peatland ecosystems can effectively stop and reverse ecosystem degradation.Communications earth & environment · 2024Article
- Plant optics: underlying mechanisms in remotely sensed signals for phenotyping applications.AoB PLANTS · 2023Review
- Growth of non-English-language literature on biodiversity conservation.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2022Article
- Standards of conduct and reporting in evidence syntheses that could inform environmental policy and management decisions.Environmental evidence · 2022Article
- Assessing assemblage-wide mammal responses to different types of habitat modification in Amazonian forests.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Mitigating impacts of invasive alien predators on an endangered sea duck amidst high native predation pressure.Oecologia · 2022Article
- Tapping into non-English-language science for the conservation of global biodiversity.PLoS biology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
60 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Building trust in science and evidence-based decision-making depends heavily on the credibility of studies and their findings. Researchers employ many different study designs that vary in their risk of bias to evaluate the true effect of interventions or impacts. Here, we empirically quantify, on a large scale, the prevalence of different study designs and the magnitude of bias in their estimates. Randomised designs and controlled observational designs with pre-intervention sampling were used by just 23% of intervention studies in biodiversity conservation, and 36% of intervention studies in social science. We demonstrate, through pairwise within-study comparisons across 49 environmental datasets, that these types of designs usually give less biased estimates than simpler observational designs. We propose a model-based approach to combine study estimates that may suffer from different levels of study design bias, discuss the implications for evidence synthesis, and how to facilitate the use of more credible study designs.
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.