On the use of systematic reviews to inform environmental policies

Environmental Science and Policy

Volumn 42, Issue , 2014, Pages 67-77

  Bilotta, Gary S ^a,b   Milner, Alice M ^b,c   Boyd, Ian ^b,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON   (United Kingdom)

^b Food and Rural Affairs   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Environmental policy; Environmental science; Literature review; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; RISK MANAGEMENT; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

EID: 84902439095     PISSN: 14629011     EISSN: 18736416     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2014.05.010     Document Type: Review

References (60)

1. Abel U., Koch A. The role of randomization in clinical studies: myths and beliefs. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1999, 52:487-497.
2. Balk E.M., Bonis P.A.L., Moskowitz H., Schmid C.H., Ioannidis J.P.A., Wang C., Lau J. Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2002, 287(22):2973-2982.
3. Berlin J.A., Rennie D. Measuring the quality of trials: the quality of quality scales. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1999, 282(11):1083-1085.
4. Bowler D., Buyung-Ali L., Knight T., Pullin A.S. How effective is 'greening' of urban areas in reducing human exposure to ground level ozone concentrations, UV exposure and the 'urban heat island effect'?. Environ. Evid. 2010, http://www.environmentalevidence.org/SR41.html.
5. Boyd I. Research: a standard for policy-relevant science. Nature 2013, 501:159-160.
6. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Guidelines for Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management. Version 4.2. Environmental Evidence 2013, http://www.environmentalevidence.org/Documents/Guidelines/Guidelines4.2.pdf.
7. Chalmers I., Haynes B. Reporting, updating, and correcting systematic reviews of the effects of health care. Br. Med. J. 1994, 309(6958):862-865.
8. Cooper H., Ribble R.G. Influences on the outcome of literature searches for integrative research reviews. Knowl.: Creation Diffus. Util. 1989, 10:179-201.
9. Cooper H.M. The problem formulation stage. Integrating Research: A Guide for Literature Reviews 1984, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA. H.M. Cooper (Ed.).
10. The Handbook of Research Synthesis 1994, Russell Sage Foundation, New York. H. Cooper, L. Hedges (Eds.).
11. Counsell C. Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann. Intern. Med. 1997, 127(5):380-387.
12. D'Agostino R.B., Kwan H. Measuring effectiveness: what to expect without a randomized control group. Med. Care 1995, 33(4):95-105.
13. Davies P., Boruch R. The Campbell Collaboration: does for public policy what Cochrane does for health. Br. Med. J. 2001, 323(7308):294-295.
14. Davies Z.G., Tyler C., Stewart G.B., Pullin A.S. Are Current Management Recommendations for Conserving Saproxylic Invertebrates Effective? CEE review 05-011 (SR17). Collaboration for Environmental Evidence 2006, http://www.environmentalevidence.org/SR17.html.
15. Deeks J.J., Dinnes J., D'amico R., Sowden A.J., Sakarovitch C., Song F., Petticrew M., Altman D.J. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol. Assess. 2003, 7(27):1-179.
16. Deeks J.J., Higgins J.P.T., Altman D.G. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011 2011, (Chapter 9). J.P.T. Higgins, S. Green (Eds.).
17. Edwards P., Clarke M., DiGuiseppi C., Pratap S., Roberts I., Wentz R. Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: accuracy and reliability of screening records. Stat. Med. 2002, 21(11):1635-1640.
18. Emerson J.D., Burdick E., Hoaglin D.C., Mosteller F., Chalmers T.C. An empirical study of the possible relation of treatment differences to quality scores in controlled randomized clinical trials. Control. Clin. Trials 1990, 11(5):339-352.
19. Fraser C., Murray A., Burr J. Identifying observational studies of surgical interventions in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Br. Med. Counc. Med. Res. Methodol. 2006, 6:41.
20. Furlan A.D., Irvin E., Bombardier C. Limited search strategies were effective in finding relevant nonrandomized studies. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2006, 59(12):1303-1311.
21. Gabriel S.E., Normand S.L. Getting the methods right - the foundation of patient-centered outcomes research. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012, 367(9):787-790.
22. Gluud L.L. Bias in clinical intervention research. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2006, 163(6):493-501.
23. Golder S., Loke Y., McIntosh H.M. Room for improvement? A survey of the methods used in systematic reviews of adverse effects. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2006, 6:3.
24. Golder S., McIntosh H.M., Duffy S., Glanville J. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and UK Cochrane Centre Search Filters Design Group, Developing efficient search strategies to identify reports of adverse effects in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Health Inform. Libr. J. 2006, 23:3-12.
25. GRADE Working Group Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Br. Med. J. 2004, 328:1490-1494.
26. Green S., Higgins J.P.T. Preparing a Cochrane review. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011 2011, (Chapter 2). J.P.T. Higgins, S. Green (Eds.).
27. Greenland S., O'Rourke K. On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analysis, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutions. Biostatistics 2001, 2:463-471.
28. Guyatt G.H., Oxman A.D., Kunz R., Vist G.E., Falck-Ytter Y., Schünemann H.J. What is 'quality of evidence' and why is it important to clinicians?. Br. Med. J. 2008, 336(7651):995-998.
29. Guyatt G.H., Oxman A.D., Vist G.E., Kunz R., Falck-Ytter Y., Alonso-Coello P., Schünemann H.J. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Br. Med. J. 2008, 336(7650):924-926.
30. Hartling L., Ospina M., Liang Y., Dryden D.M., Hooton N., Seida J.K., Klassen T.P. Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study. Br. Med. J. 2009, 339:b4012.
31. Hartling L., Hamm M.P., Milne A., Vandermeer B., Santaguida P.L., Ansari M., Tsertsvadze A., Hempel S., Shekelle P., Dryden D.M. Testing the Risk of Bias tool showed low reliability between individual reviewers and across consensus assessments of reviewer pairs. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2012, 66(9):973-981.
32. Hedges L.V. Statistical considerations. The Handbook of Research Synthesis 1994, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY. H. Cooper, L.V. Hedges (Eds.).
33. Higgins J.P.T., Altman D.G., Sterne J.A.C. Assessing risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011 2011, (Chapter 8). J.P.T. Higgins, S. Green (Eds.).
34. Higgins J.P.T., Altman D.G., Gøtzsche P.C., Jüni P., Moher D., Oxman A.D., Savović J., Schulz K.F., Weeks L., Sterne J.A.C. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Br. Med. J. 2011, 343:d5928.
35. Higgins J.P.T., Deeks J.J. Selecting studies and collecting data. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011 2011, (Chapter 7). J.P.T. Higgins, S. Green (Eds.).
36. Higgins J.P.T., Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011 2011, Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
37. Jackson G.B. Methods for integrative reviews. Rev. Educ. Res. 1980, 50:438-460.
38. Johnson V., Fitzpatrick I., Floyd R., Simms A. What is the Evidence that Scarcity and Shocks in Freshwater Resources Cause Conflict Instead of Promoting Collaboration? CEE Review 10-010. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence 2011, http://www.environmentalevidence.org/SR%2010010.html.
39. Juni P., Witschi A., Bloch R., Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1999, 282(11):1054-1060.
40. Khan K.S., ter Riet G., Glanville J., Sowden A.J., Kleijnen J. Undertaking Systematic Reviews of Research on Effectiveness: CRD's Guidance for those Carrying Out or Commissioning Reviews (CRD Report Number 4) 2001, NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK. 2nd edition.
41. Lefebvre C., Manheimer E., Glanville J. Searching for studies. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011 2011, (Chapter 6). J.P.T. Higgins, S. Green (Eds.).
42. Light R.J., Pillemer D.B. Summing Up: The Science of Reviewing Research 1984, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
43. Lundh A., Gøtzsche P.C. Recommendations by Cochrane Review Groups for assessment of the risk of bias in studies. Br. Med. Counc. Med. Res. Methodol. 2008, 8:22.
44. Miller J., Rees G., Warnaars T., Young G., Shrestha A., Collins D. What is the Evidence About Glacier Melt Across the Himalayas. CEE Review 10-008. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence 2013, http://www.environmentalevidence.org/SR%2010008.html.
45. Moher D., Pham B., Jones A., Cook D.J., Jadad A.R. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?. Lancet 1998, 352(9128):609-613.
46. O'Connor D., Green S., Higgins J.P.T. Defining the review question and developing criteria for including studies. Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Intervention. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011 2011, (Chapter 5). J.P.T. Higgins, S. Green (Eds.).
47. Oxman A.D., Guyatt G.H. The science of reviewing research. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1993, 703:125-133.
48. Petticrew M. Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths and misconceptions. Br. Med. J. 2001, 322(7278):98-101.
49. Pullin A.S., Knight T. Time to build capacity for evidence synthesis in environmental management. Environ. Evid. 2013, 2(1):21-22.
50. Rees R., Kavanagh J., Burchett H., Shepherd J., Brunton G., Harden A., Thomas S., Oakley A. HIV Health Promotion and Men who have Sex with Men, (MSM): A Systematic Review of Research Relevant to the Development and Implementation of Effective and Appropriate Interventions 2004, EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK.
51. Richardson W.S., Wilson M.S., Nishikawa J., Hayward R.S.A. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence based decisions. ACP J. Club 1995, A12-A13.
52. Schulz K.F., Chalmers I., Hayes R.J., Altman D.G. Empirical evidence of bias, dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1995, 273(5):408-412.
53. Schünemann H.J., Jaeschke R., Cook D.J., Bria W.F., El-Solh A.A., Ernst A., Fahy B.F., Gould M.K., Horan K.L., Krishnan J.A., Manthous C.A., Maurer J.R., McNicholas W.T., Oxman A.D., Rubenfeld G., Turino G.M., Guyatt G. An official ATS statement: grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in ATS guidelines and recommendations. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2006, 174(5):605-614.
54. Sciberras M., Jenkins S., Kaiser M., Hawkins S., Pullin A. Evaluating the biological effectiveness of fully and partially protected marine areas. Environ. Evid. 2013, 2(4). http://www.environmentalevidencejournal.org/content/2/1/4.
55. Thomas B.H., Ciliska D., Dobbins M., Micucci S. A process for systematically reviewing the literature: providing the research evidence for public health nursing interventions. Worldviews Evid.-Based Nurs. 2004, 1:165-184.
56. Tramèr M.R., Reynolds D.J., Moore R.A., McQuay H.J. Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study. Br. Med. J. 1997, 315(7109):635-640.
57. Turner L., Boutron I., Hróbjartsson A., Altman D.G., Moher D. The evolution of assessing bias in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: celebrating methodological contributions of the Cochrane Collaboration. Syst. Rev. 2013, 2(1):79.
58. West S., King V., Carey T.S., Lohr K.N., McKoy M.D.N., Sutton S.F., Lux L. Systems to Rate the Strength of Scientific Evidence. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 47 (Prepared by the Research Triangle Institute-University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-97-0011). AHRQ Publication No. 02-E016 2002, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD.
59. Wieland S., Dickersin K. Selective exposure reporting and Medline indexing limited the search sensitivity for observational studies of the adverse effects of oral contraceptives. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2005, 58:560-567.
60. Wood L., Egger M., Gluud L.L., Schulz K.F., Juni P., Altman D.G., Gluud C., Martin R.M., Wood A.J.G., Sterne J.A.C. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. Br. Med. J. 2008, 336(7644):601-605.