Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36250156›Full record

ArticleMethods in ecology and evolution2022

ROBITT: A tool for assessing the risk-of-bias in studies of temporal trends in ecology.

Robin J Boyd, Gary D Powney, Fiona Burns, Alain Danet, François Duchenne, Matthew J Grainger, Susan G Jarvis, Gabrielle Martin, Erlend B Nilsen, Emmanuelle Porcher and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Methods in ecology and evolution, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. From data to decisions: Toward a Biodiversity Monitoring Standards Framework.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Treating gaps and biases in biodiversity data as a missing data problem.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025
    Review
  10. Towards a standardized framework for AI-assisted, image-based monitoring of nocturnal insects.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Discordant upslope range shifts shuffle parasitoid-host species interactions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  15. Elevational homogenization of mountain parasitoids across six decades.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  16. Looking back on biodiversity change: lessons for the road ahead.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023
    Review
  17. Article
  18. 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

13 authors.

Robin J BoydUK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology Wallingford UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7973-9865
Gary D PowneyUK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology Wallingford UK.
Fiona BurnsRSPB Centre for Conservation Science Cambridge UK.
Alain DanetCentre d'Ecologie et des Sciences de la Conservation (CESCO), Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, CNRS Sorbonne Université Paris France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1592-9483
François DuchenneSwiss Federal Institute for Forest Snow and Landscape Research (WSL) Birmensdorf Switzerland.
Matthew J GraingerNorwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) Trondheim Norway.
Susan G JarvisUK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology Lancaster Environment Centre Lancaster UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5382-5135
Gabrielle MartinLaboratoire EDB Évolution & Diversité Biologique UMR 5174 Université de Toulouse, Université Toulouse 3 Paul Sabatier, UPS, CNRS, IRD Toulouse France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9192-4924
Erlend B NilsenNorwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) Trondheim Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5119-8331
Emmanuelle PorcherCentre d'Ecologie et des Sciences de la Conservation (CESCO), Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, CNRS Sorbonne Université Paris France.
Gavin B StewartEvidence Synthesis Lab, School of Natural and Environmental Science University of Newcastle Newcastle-upon-Tyne UK.
Oliver J WilsonPlantlife Salisbury UK.
Oliver L PescottUK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology Wallingford UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0685-8046

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aggregated species occurrence and abundance data from disparate sources are increasingly accessible to ecologists for the analysis of temporal trends in biodiversity. However, sampling biases relevant to any given research question are often poorly explored and infrequently reported; this can undermine statistical inference. In other disciplines, it is common for researchers to complete 'risk-of-bias' assessments to expose and document the potential for biases to undermine conclusions. The huge growth in available data, and recent controversies surrounding their use to infer temporal trends, indicate that similar assessments are urgently needed in ecology.We introduce ROBITT, a structured tool for assessing the 'Risk-Of-Bias In studies of Temporal Trends in ecology'. ROBITT has a similar format to its counterparts in other disciplines: it comprises signalling questions designed to elicit information on the potential for bias in key study domains. In answering these, users will define study inferential goal(s) and relevant statistical target populations. This information is used to assess potential sampling biases across domains relevant to the research question (e.g. geography, taxonomy, environment), and how these vary through time. If assessments indicate biases, then users must clearly describe them and/or explain what mitigating action will be taken.Everything that users need to complete a ROBITT assessment is provided: the tool, a guidance document and a worked example. Following other disciplines, the tool and guidance document were developed through a consensus-forming process across experts working in relevant areas of ecology and evidence synthesis.We propose that researchers should be strongly encouraged to include a ROBITT assessment when publishing studies of biodiversity trends, especially when using aggregated data. This will help researchers to structure their thinking, clearly acknowledge potential sampling issues, highlight where expert consultation is required and provide an opportunity to describe data checks that might go unreported. ROBITT will also enable reviewers, editors and readers to establish how well research conclusions are supported given a dataset combined with some analytical approach. In turn, it should strengthen evidence-based policy and practice, reduce differing interpretations of data and provide a clearer picture of the uncertainties associated with our understanding of reality.

Indexed as

essential biodiversity variablesindicatorsinsect declinesrisk‐of‐biasspecies occurrence datatemporal trendsuncertainty

Identifiers

PMID36250156
PMCPMC9541136

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.