ArticleMethods in ecology and evolution2022
ROBITT: A tool for assessing the risk-of-bias in studies of temporal trends in ecology.
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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mechanistic Insights into Wildlife Cancer and Conservation Strategies Under the One Health Framework.Veterinary sciences · 2026Review
- Risk of Bias in Experiments, Quasi-Experiments and Natural Experiments Across Disciplines: Discussion Paper and Assessment Framework.Campbell systematic reviews · 2026Article
- From data to decisions: Toward a Biodiversity Monitoring Standards Framework.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Article
- Towards a unified approach to formal "risk of bias" assessments for causal and descriptive inference.Quality & quantity · 2026Article
- Citizen scientists mapping the United Kingdom's and Republic of Ireland's flat flies (louse flies) (Diptera: Hippoboscidae) reveal a vector's range shift.Medical and veterinary entomology · 2025Article
- Trait mediation explains decadal distributional shifts for a wide range of insect taxa.Nature communications · 2025Article
- State of nature 2023 terrestrial and freshwater animal dataset for the United Kingdom and its constituent countries.Data in brief · 2025Article
- Treating gaps and biases in biodiversity data as a missing data problem.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025Review
- 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 · 2024Article
- Descriptive inference using large, unrepresentative nonprobability samples: An introduction for ecologists.Ecology · 2024Article
- Citizen science is a vital partnership for invasive alien species management and research.iScience · 2024Review
- Pharmaceutical products, drugs and personal care products in European waters: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2024Article
- Discordant upslope range shifts shuffle parasitoid-host species interactions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Elevational homogenization of mountain parasitoids across six decades.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Looking back on biodiversity change: lessons for the road ahead.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Review
- Increases in intraspecific body size variation are common among North American mammals and birds between 1880 and 2020.Nature ecology & evolution · 2023Article
- ROBITT: A tool for assessing the risk-of-bias in studies of temporal trends in ecology.Methods in ecology and evolution · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.