Critical appraisal in ecology: What tools are available, and what is being used in systematic reviews?

IF 5 2区 生物学 Q1 MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY
Jessica Stanhope, Philip Weinstein
{"title":"Critical appraisal in ecology: What tools are available, and what is being used in systematic reviews?","authors":"Jessica Stanhope,&nbsp;Philip Weinstein","doi":"10.1002/jrsm.1609","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Many reviews referred to as ‘systematic reviews’ in ecology are not consistent with best practice in that they generally lack appropriate critical appraisal of included studies. This limitation is particularly important in applied ecology, where there have been increasing calls for more systematic reviews to guide decision making. To identify the available critical appraisal tools (CATs) and hierarchies of evidence available for ecology studies, we systematically searched for: studies that described the development and/or examination of tools to assess the potential methodological bias in studies of ecology; and the tools used to assess potential methodological bias of included studies in ecological systematic reviews. We identified 680 reviews labelled as ‘systematic reviews’ in ecology, however only 4.0% performed critical appraisal of the included studies. Three hierarchies of evidence and 23 CATs were identified, and assessed as lacking independent development, validity and reliability testing, and/or completeness. The authors of the reviews that included critical appraisal have appropriately identified the need to move reviews in ecology in the direction of this higher level of evidence, and have taken applied ecology further in the direction of evidence-based practice. However, we identified shortcomings in these approaches when compared with best practice, and conclude that new tools are needed that reflect a range of questions posed in ecology. Through increasing the availability of such tools, the strength of evidence provided by systematic reviews in ecology would improve.</p>","PeriodicalId":226,"journal":{"name":"Research Synthesis Methods","volume":"14 3","pages":"342-356"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jrsm.1609","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Synthesis Methods","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jrsm.1609","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Many reviews referred to as ‘systematic reviews’ in ecology are not consistent with best practice in that they generally lack appropriate critical appraisal of included studies. This limitation is particularly important in applied ecology, where there have been increasing calls for more systematic reviews to guide decision making. To identify the available critical appraisal tools (CATs) and hierarchies of evidence available for ecology studies, we systematically searched for: studies that described the development and/or examination of tools to assess the potential methodological bias in studies of ecology; and the tools used to assess potential methodological bias of included studies in ecological systematic reviews. We identified 680 reviews labelled as ‘systematic reviews’ in ecology, however only 4.0% performed critical appraisal of the included studies. Three hierarchies of evidence and 23 CATs were identified, and assessed as lacking independent development, validity and reliability testing, and/or completeness. The authors of the reviews that included critical appraisal have appropriately identified the need to move reviews in ecology in the direction of this higher level of evidence, and have taken applied ecology further in the direction of evidence-based practice. However, we identified shortcomings in these approaches when compared with best practice, and conclude that new tools are needed that reflect a range of questions posed in ecology. Through increasing the availability of such tools, the strength of evidence provided by systematic reviews in ecology would improve.

生态学中的批判性评价:可用的工具是什么?在系统评价中使用的是什么?
生态学中被称为“系统评价”的许多评价与最佳实践不一致,因为它们通常缺乏对纳入研究的适当批判性评价。这一限制在应用生态学中尤为重要,在应用生态学中,越来越多的人呼吁进行更系统的审查,以指导决策。为了确定生态学研究可用的关键评估工具(CATs)和证据等级,我们系统地检索了以下研究:描述了评估生态学研究中潜在方法学偏差的工具的发展和/或检查的研究;以及用于评估生态系统评价中纳入研究的潜在方法学偏差的工具。我们确定了680篇被标记为生态学“系统评价”的综述,但只有4.0%的综述对纳入的研究进行了批判性评价。确定了三个证据层次和23个cat,并评估为缺乏独立开发,效度和信度测试和/或完整性。包括批判性评价在内的综述的作者已经适当地认识到,生态学的综述需要朝着更高水平的证据的方向发展,并在循证实践的方向上进一步推动应用生态学。然而,与最佳实践相比,我们发现了这些方法的缺点,并得出结论,需要新的工具来反映生态学中提出的一系列问题。通过增加这些工具的可用性,生态系统审查提供的证据的强度将得到提高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Research Synthesis Methods
Research Synthesis Methods MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGYMULTID-MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
CiteScore
16.90
自引率
3.10%
发文量
75
期刊介绍: Research Synthesis Methods is a reputable, peer-reviewed journal that focuses on the development and dissemination of methods for conducting systematic research synthesis. Our aim is to advance the knowledge and application of research synthesis methods across various disciplines. Our journal provides a platform for the exchange of ideas and knowledge related to designing, conducting, analyzing, interpreting, reporting, and applying research synthesis. While research synthesis is commonly practiced in the health and social sciences, our journal also welcomes contributions from other fields to enrich the methodologies employed in research synthesis across scientific disciplines. By bridging different disciplines, we aim to foster collaboration and cross-fertilization of ideas, ultimately enhancing the quality and effectiveness of research synthesis methods. Whether you are a researcher, practitioner, or stakeholder involved in research synthesis, our journal strives to offer valuable insights and practical guidance for your work.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信