Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management

Conservation Biology

Volumn 20, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 1647-1656

  Pullin, Andrew S ^a   Stewart, Gavin B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Conservation policy; Conservation practice; Decision making; Evidence based knowledge transfer

Indexed keywords

CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; DATA ACQUISITION; DATA QUALITY; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; GUIDELINE;

ANIMAL; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; HUMAN; LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; REVIEW;

ANIMALS; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; GUIDELINES; HUMANS; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE;

EID: 33845490829     PISSN: 08888892     EISSN: 15231739     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00485.x     Document Type: Review

References (44)

1. Arnqvist, G., and D. Wooster. 1995. Metaanalysis - synthesizing research findings in ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 10:236-240.
2. Bero, L., R. Grilli, J. Grimshaw, G. Mowatt, A. Oxman, and M. Zwarenstein, editors. 1999. Effective practice and organisation of care module of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Issue 2. Update software. The Cochrane Library, Oxford, United Kingdom.
3. Cohen, J. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20:37-46.
4. Cooper, H. M. 1984. Integrating research. A guide for literature reviews. Sage Publications, Newbury Park.
5. Dixon-Woods, M., S. Agarwal, B. Young. D. Jones, and A. Sutton. 2004. Integrative approaches to qualitative and quantitative evidence. National Health Services Health Development Agency, London.
6. Edwards, P., M. Clarke, C. DiGuiseppi, S. Pratap, I. Roberts, and R. Wentz. 2002. Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: accuracy and reliability of screening records. Statistics in Medicine 21:1635-1640.
7. Emerson, J. D., E. Burdick, D. C. Hoaglin, F. Mosteller, and T. C. Chalmers. 1990. An empirical study of the possible relation of treatment differences to quality scores in controlled randomized clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 11:339-352.
8. Fazey, I., J. G. Salisbury, D. B. Lindenmayer, J. Maindonald, and R. Douglas. 2004. Can methods applied in medicine be used to summarize and disseminate conservation research? Environmental Conservation 31:190-198.
9. Feinstein, A. R. 1985. Clinical epidemiology: the architecture of clinical research. Saunders, Philadelphia.
10. Feinstein, A. R., and R. I. Horwitz. 1982. Double standards, scientific methods, and epidemiological research. New England Journal of Medicine 307:1611-1617.
11. Fox, D. M. 2005. Evidence of evidence-based health policy: the politics of systematic reviews in coverage decisions. Health Affairs 24:114-122.
12. Gates, S. 2002. Review of methodology of quantitative reviews using meta-analysis in ecology. Journal of Animal Ecology 71:547-557.
13. Gotzsche, P. C. 1987. Reference bias in reports of drug trials. British Medical Journal 295:654-656.
14. Hedges, L. V. 1994. Statistical considerations. Pages 30-33 in H. Cooper and L. V. Hedges, editors. The handbook of research synthesis. Russell Sage Foundation, New York.
15. Higgins, J. P. T., and S. Green, editors. 2005. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.5. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, United Kingdom.
16. Horwitz, R. I., and A. R. Feinstein. 1979. Methodological standards and contradictory results in case-control research. American Journal of Medicine 66:556-564.
17. Jackson, G. B. 1980. Methods for integrative reviews. Review Education Research 50:438-460.
18. Jüni, P., A. Witschi, R. Bloch, and M. Egger. 1999. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. Journal of American Medical Association 282:1054-1060.
19. Khan, K. S., R. Kunz, J. Kleijnen, and G. Antes. 2003. Systematic reviews to support evidence-based medicine: how to apply findings of healthcare research. Royal Society of Medicine Press, London.
20. Kunz, R., and A. D. Oxman. 1998. The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and nonrandomised trials. British Medical Journal 317:1185-1190.
21. Leimu, R., and J. Koricheva. 2005. What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20:28-32.
22. Levine, M., S. Walter, H. Lee, T. Haines, A. Holbrook, and V. Moyer. 1994. The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Users' guides to the medical literature IV: how to use an article about harm. Journal of American Medical Association 271:1615-1619.
23. Light, R. J., and D. B. Pillemer. 1984. Summing up: the science of reviewing research. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
24. Louis, T., and D. Zelterman. 1993. Bayesian approaches to research synthesis. Pages 411-422 in H. Cooper and L. V. Hedges, editors. The handbook of research synthesis. Russell Sage Foundation, New York.
25. Moher, D., A. R. Jadad, G. Nichol, M. Penman, P. Tugwell, and S. Walsh. 1995. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Controlled Clinical Trials 16:62-73.
26. Moher, D., A. R. Jadad, and P. Tugwell. 1996. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: current issues and future directions. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 12:195-208.
27. Morris, C. N., and S. L. Normand. 1992. Hierarchical models for combining information and for meta-analyses. Pages 321-344 in J. M. Bernardo, J. O. Berger, A. P. Dawid, and A. F. M. Smith, editors. Bayesian statistics. 4th edition. Oxford University Press, New York.
28. NHS (National Health Service) CRD (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination). 2001. Undertaking systematic review of research on effectiveness. NHS CRD, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
29. Osenberg, C. W., O. Sarnelle, S. D. Cooper, and R. D. Holt. 1999. Resolving ecological questions through meta-analysis: goals, metrics and models. Ecology 80:1105-1117.
30. Pullin, A., and T. Knight. 2001. Effectiveness in conservation practice: pointers from medicine and public health. Conservation Biology 15:50-54.
31. Pullin, A., and T. Knight. 2003. Support for decision-making in conservation practice: an evidence-based approach. Journal for Nature Conservation 11:83-90.
32. Pullin, A., T. Knight, D. Stone, and K. Charman. 2004. Do conservation managers use scientific evidence to support their decision-making? Biological Conservation 119:245-252.
33. Ravnskov, U. 1992. Cholesterol lowering trials in coronary heart disease: frequency of citation and outcome. British Medical Journal 305:9-15.
34. Roberts, P.D., G. B. Stewart, and A.S. Pullin. 2006. Are review articles a reliable source of evidence to support conservation management? A comparison with medicine. Biological Conservation:in press.
35. Sharp, S. 1998. Meta-analysis regression: statistics, biostatistics, and epidemiology. Stata Technical Bulletin 42:16-22.
36. Schulz, K. F., I. Chalmers, R. J. Hayes, and D. G. Altman. 1995. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. Journal of the American Medical Association 273:408-412.
37. Stevens, A., and R. Milne. 1997. The effectiveness revolution and public health. Pages 197-225 in G. Scally, editor. Progress in public health. Royal Society of Medicine Press, London.
38. Stewart, G. B., C. F. Coles, and A. S. Pullin. 2005a. Applying evidence-based practice in conservation management: lessons from the first systematic review and dissemination projects. Biological Conservation 126:270-278.
39. Stewart, G. B., A. S. Pullin, and C. F. Coles. 2005b. Effects of wind turbines on bird abundance. Systematic review 4. Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation, Birmingham, United Kingdom. (Also available from www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/systematicreviews.htm.)
40. Sutherland, W., A. Pullin, P. Dolman, and T. Knight. 2004. The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19:305-308.
41. Thompson, S. 1994. Systematic review: why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated. British Medical Journal 309:1351-1355.
42. Tyler, C., and A. S. Pullin. 2005. Do commonly used interventions effectively control Rhododendron ponticum? Systematic Review 6. Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation, Birmingham, United Kingdom. (Also available from www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/systematicreviews.htm.)
43. Tyler, C., E. Clark, and A. S. Pullin. 2005. Do management interventions effectively reduce or eradicate populations of the American Mink, Mustela vison? Systematic Review 7. Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation, Birmingham, United Kingdom. (Also available from www.cebc.bham.ac.uk/systematicreviews.htm.)
44. Tyler, C., A. S. Pullin, and G. B. Stewart. 2006. Effectiveness of management interventions to control invasion by Rhododendron ponticum. Environmental Management 37:513-522.