{"title":"Patterns and Pitfalls of Short-cuts Used in Environmental Management Rapid Reviews","authors":"Meagan Harper, Trina Rytwinski, Steven J. Cooke","doi":"10.1007/s00267-023-01901-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":543,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Management","volume":"73 2","pages":"457 - 469"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00267-023-01901-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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.
期刊介绍：
Environmental Management offers research and opinions on use and conservation of natural resources, protection of habitats and control of hazards, spanning the field of environmental management without regard to traditional disciplinary boundaries. The journal aims to improve communication, making ideas and results from any field available to practitioners from other backgrounds. Contributions are drawn from biology, botany, chemistry, climatology, ecology, ecological economics, environmental engineering, fisheries, environmental law, forest sciences, geosciences, information science, public affairs, public health, toxicology, zoology and more.
As the principal user of nature, humanity is responsible for ensuring that its environmental impacts are benign rather than catastrophic. Environmental Management presents the work of academic researchers and professionals outside universities, including those in business, government, research establishments, and public interest groups, presenting a wide spectrum of viewpoints and approaches.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
