Predicting the time needed for environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps

Conservation Biology

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2019, Pages 434-443

  Haddaway, Neal R ^a,b   Westgate, Martin J ^c  

^a STOCKHOLM ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG   (South Africa)

^c AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

carga laboral; compromiso de tiempo; cost; costo; efficiency; eficiencia; evidence synthesis; literature review; revisi n de literatura; s ntesis de evidencias; time commitment; workload

Indexed keywords

COST ANALYSIS; DETECTION METHOD; EFFICIENCY MEASUREMENT; ESTIMATION METHOD; LITERATURE REVIEW; MAP; METADATA; PLANNING METHOD; PREDICTION; SOFTWARE;

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; METHODOLOGY; QUESTIONNAIRE;

CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; RESEARCH DESIGN; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 85055491341     PISSN: 08888892     EISSN: 15231739     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13231     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Bayliss HR, Beyer FR. 2015. Information retrieval for ecological syntheses. Research Synthesis Methods 6:136–148.
2. Borah R, Brown AW, Capers PL, Kaiser KA. 2017. Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open 7:e012545.
3. CEE (Collaboration for Environmental Evidence). 2013. Guidelines for systematic review and evidence synthesis in environmental management. Version 4.2. Environmental Evidence. Available from http://environmentalevidence.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Review-guidelinesversion-4.2-finalPRINT.pdf (accessed January 2018).
4. CCACE (Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology). 2013. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a step-by-step guide. Available from http://www.ccace.ed.ac.uk/research/software-resources/systematic-reviews-and-meta-analyses (accessed September 2018).
5. Chang W. 2015. shinydashboard: create dashboards with ‘Shiny’. R package version 0.5 1. Available from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/shinydashboard/index.html (accessed January 2018).
6. Chang W, Cheng J, Allaire J, Xie Y, McPherson J. 2017. Shiny: web application framework for R. R package version 1.0.3. Available from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/shiny/index.html (accessed January 2018).
7. Collins A, Coughlin D, Miller J, Kirk S. 2015. The production of quick scoping reviews and rapid evidence assessments: a how to guide. Joint Water Evidence Group, United Kingdom.
8. Dicks LV, Walsh JC, Sutherland WJ. 2014. Organising evidence for environmental management decisions: a ‘4S’ hierarchy. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 29:607–613.
9. Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Jones D, Young B, Sutton A. 2005. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 10:45–53.
10. Flemming K. 2007. The synthesis of qualitative research and evidence-based nursing. Evidence-based Nursing 10:68–71.
11. Haddaway N, Woodcock P, Macura B, Collins A. 2015. Making literature reviews more reliable through application of lessons from systematic reviews. Conservation Biology 29:1596–1605.
12. Haddaway NR, Bayliss HR. 2015. Shades of grey: two forms of grey literature important for reviews in conservation. Biological Conservation 191:827–829.
13. Haddaway NR, Bernes C, Jonsson B-G, Hedlund K. 2016a. The benefits of systematic mapping to evidence-based environmental management. Ambio 45:613–620.
14. Haddaway NR, Brown C, Eggers S, Josefsson J, Kronvang B, Randall N, Uusi-Kämppä J. 2016b. The multifunctional roles of vegetated strips around and within agricultural fields. A systematic map protocol. Environmental Evidence 5:18.
15. Haddaway NR, Macura B, Whaley P, Pullin AS. 2018. ROSES RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses: pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps. Environmental Evidence 7:7.
16. Higgins JP, Green S. 2011. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey.
17. Humbert J-Y, Pellet J, Buri P, Arlettaz R. 2012. Does delaying the first mowing date benefit biodiversity in meadowland? Environmental Evidence 1:9.
18. James KL, Randall NP, Haddaway NR. 2016. A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environmental Evidence 5:7.
19. Jones E, Taylor B, MacArthur C, Pritchett R, Cummins C. 2016. The effect of early postnatal discharge from hospital for women and infants: a systematic review protocol. Systematic Reviews 5:24.
20. Kelley K, et al. 2003. Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 15:261–266.
21. Laffers R. 2008. Error propogation calculator. Available from https://www.eoas.ubc.ca/courses/eosc252/error-propagation-calculator-fj.htm (accessed September 2018).
22. Livoreil B, Glanville J, Haddaway NR, Bayliss H, Bethel A, Lachapelle FF, Robalino S, Savilaakso S, Zhou W, Petrokofsky G. 2017. Systematic searching for environmental evidence using multiple tools and sources. Environmental Evidence 6:23.
23. McGowan J, Sampson M. 2005. Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. Journal of the Medical Library Association 93:74.
24. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLOS Medicine 6:e1000097.
25. Pullin AS, Stewart GB. 2006. Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology 20:1647–1656.
26. R Core Development Team. 2017. R: a language and environment for statistical computing, Version 3.4.1. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
27. Randall NP, Donnison LM, Lewis PJ, James KL. 2015. How effective are on-farm mitigation measures for delivering an improved water environment? A systematic map. Environmental Evidence 4:18.
28. Shekelle PG, Shetty K, Newberry S, Maglione M, Motala A. 2017. Machine learning versus standard techniques for updating searches for systematic reviews: a diagnostic accuracy study. Annals of Internal Medicine 167:213–215.
29. Shlonsky A, Noonan E, Littell JH, Montgomery P. 2011. The role of systematic reviews and the Campbell Collaboration in the realization of evidence-informed practice. Clinical Social Work Journal 39:362–368.
30. Sievert C, Parmer C, Hocking T, Chamberlain S, Ram K, Corvellec M, Despouy P. 2017. plotly: create interactive web graphics via plotly. js. R package version 4.7.1. Available from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=plotly (accessed January 2018).
31. Westgate MJ, Haddaway NR, Cheng SH, McIntosh EJ, Marshall C, Lindenmayer DB. 2018. Software support for environmental evidence synthesis. Nature Ecology & Evolution 2:588–590.
32. Westgate MJ, Lindenmayer DB. 2017. The difficulties of systematic reviews. Conservation Biology 31:1002–1007.