The CEEDER database of evidence reviews: An open-access evidence service for researchers and decision-makers.
Critical appraisal
Decision support tool
Evidence synthesis
Evidence-based
Policy making
Risk of bias
Journal
Environmental science & policy
ISSN: 1462-9011
Titre abrégé: Environ Sci Policy
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101561733
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2020
Dec 2020
Historique:
received:
25
03
2020
revised:
29
07
2020
accepted:
29
08
2020
entrez:
14
9
2020
pubmed:
15
9
2020
medline:
15
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32922207
doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2020.08.021
pii: S1462-9011(20)30399-3
pmc: PMC7474817
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
256-262Informations de copyright
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
BMJ. 2013 Aug 14;347:f5040
pubmed: 23945367
Conserv Biol. 2015 Dec;29(6):1596-605
pubmed: 26032263
Lancet. 2009 Jul 4;374(9683):86-9
pubmed: 19525005
Nature. 2019 Aug;572(7769):303-306
pubmed: 31406318
Environ Int. 2017 Feb;99:356-360
pubmed: 28041639
Trends Ecol Evol. 2014 Nov;29(11):607-13
pubmed: 25280588
Science. 1963 Oct 18;142(3590):339
pubmed: 17799464
Nature. 2018 Jun;558(7710):361-364
pubmed: 29925978
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Oct 3;10:ED000142
pubmed: 31643080
Conserv Biol. 2013 Oct;27(5):902-15
pubmed: 24001025
Syst Rev. 2012 Jun 09;1:28
pubmed: 22681772
Nature. 2018 Mar 7;555(7695):175-182
pubmed: 29517004