ArticleEnvironmental management2024
Patterns and Pitfalls of Short-cuts Used in Environmental Management Rapid Reviews.
Article in Environmental management, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Standardized Definition of Rapid Evidence Assessment for Environmental Applications.Conservation letters · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Environmental managers and policy-makers need reliable evidence to make effective decisions. Systematic reviews are one way to provide this information but are time-consuming and may not meet the needs of decision-makers when faced with rapidly changing management requirements or transient policy-windows. Rapid reviews are one type of knowledge synthesis that follow simplified or truncated methods compared to systematic reviews. Rapid reviews on environmentally-relevant topics are growing in prevalence, but it is unclear if rapid reviews use similar short-cuts or follow available guidelines. In this methodological review, we assess 26 rapid reviews published between 2002 and 2023. Numerous rapid review short-cuts and approaches were identified, with few consistencies among studies. Short-cuts were present in all stages of the review process, with some of the most common short-cuts including not developing an a priori review protocol, not including stakeholder involvement, or not conducting critical appraisal of study validity. Poor quality in reporting of methods was observed. Fewer than half of assessed rapid reviews reported using available guidelines when developing their methods. Future rapid reviews should aim for improved reporting and adherence to published guidelines to help increase the useability and evidence-user confidence. This will also enable readers to understand where short-cuts were made and their potential consequences for the conclusions of the review.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37922103What 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.