Cargando…
The CEEDER database of evidence reviews: An open-access evidence service for researchers and decision-makers
Evidence-informed decision-making aims to deliver effective actions informed by the best available evidence. Given the large quantity of primary literature, and time constraints faced by policy-makers and practitioners, well-conducted evidence reviews can provide a valuable resource to support decis...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier Ltd.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7474817/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32922207 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.08.021 |
_version_ | 1783579394315386880 |
---|---|
author | Konno, Ko Cheng, Samantha H. Eales, Jacqualyn Frampton, Geoff Kohl, Christian Livoreil, Barbara Macura, Biljana O’Leary, Bethan C. Randall, Nicola P. Taylor, Jessica J. Woodcock, Paul Pullin, Andrew S. |
author_facet | Konno, Ko Cheng, Samantha H. Eales, Jacqualyn Frampton, Geoff Kohl, Christian Livoreil, Barbara Macura, Biljana O’Leary, Bethan C. Randall, Nicola P. Taylor, Jessica J. Woodcock, Paul Pullin, Andrew S. |
author_sort | Konno, Ko |
collection | PubMed |
description | Evidence-informed decision-making aims to deliver effective actions informed by the best available evidence. Given the large quantity of primary literature, and time constraints faced by policy-makers and practitioners, well-conducted evidence reviews can provide a valuable resource to support decision-making. However, previous research suggests that some evidence reviews may not be sufficiently reliable to inform decisions in the environmental sector due to low standards of conduct and reporting. While some evidence reviews are of high reliability, there is currently no way for policy-makers and practitioners to quickly and easily find them among the many lower reliability ones. Alongside this lack of transparency, there is little incentive or support for review authors, editors and peer-reviewers to improve reliability. To address these issues, we introduce a new online, freely available and first-of-its-kind evidence service: the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Database of Evidence Reviews (CEEDER: www.environmentalevidence.org/ceeder). CEEDER aims to transform communication of evidence review reliability to researchers, policy-makers and practitioners through independent assessment of key aspects of the conduct, reporting and data limitations of available evidence reviews claiming to assess environmental impacts or the effectiveness of interventions relevant to policy and practice. At the same time, CEEDER will provide support to improve the standards of future evidence reviews and support evidence translation and knowledge mobilisation to help inform environmental decision-making. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7474817 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Elsevier Ltd. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-74748172020-09-08 The CEEDER database of evidence reviews: An open-access evidence service for researchers and decision-makers Konno, Ko Cheng, Samantha H. Eales, Jacqualyn Frampton, Geoff Kohl, Christian Livoreil, Barbara Macura, Biljana O’Leary, Bethan C. Randall, Nicola P. Taylor, Jessica J. Woodcock, Paul Pullin, Andrew S. Environ Sci Policy Short Communication Evidence-informed decision-making aims to deliver effective actions informed by the best available evidence. Given the large quantity of primary literature, and time constraints faced by policy-makers and practitioners, well-conducted evidence reviews can provide a valuable resource to support decision-making. However, previous research suggests that some evidence reviews may not be sufficiently reliable to inform decisions in the environmental sector due to low standards of conduct and reporting. While some evidence reviews are of high reliability, there is currently no way for policy-makers and practitioners to quickly and easily find them among the many lower reliability ones. Alongside this lack of transparency, there is little incentive or support for review authors, editors and peer-reviewers to improve reliability. To address these issues, we introduce a new online, freely available and first-of-its-kind evidence service: the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Database of Evidence Reviews (CEEDER: www.environmentalevidence.org/ceeder). CEEDER aims to transform communication of evidence review reliability to researchers, policy-makers and practitioners through independent assessment of key aspects of the conduct, reporting and data limitations of available evidence reviews claiming to assess environmental impacts or the effectiveness of interventions relevant to policy and practice. At the same time, CEEDER will provide support to improve the standards of future evidence reviews and support evidence translation and knowledge mobilisation to help inform environmental decision-making. Elsevier Ltd. 2020-12 2020-09-06 /pmc/articles/PMC7474817/ /pubmed/32922207 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.08.021 Text en © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active. |
spellingShingle | Short Communication Konno, Ko Cheng, Samantha H. Eales, Jacqualyn Frampton, Geoff Kohl, Christian Livoreil, Barbara Macura, Biljana O’Leary, Bethan C. Randall, Nicola P. Taylor, Jessica J. Woodcock, Paul Pullin, Andrew S. The CEEDER database of evidence reviews: An open-access evidence service for researchers and decision-makers |
title | The CEEDER database of evidence reviews: An open-access evidence service for researchers and decision-makers |
title_full | The CEEDER database of evidence reviews: An open-access evidence service for researchers and decision-makers |
title_fullStr | The CEEDER database of evidence reviews: An open-access evidence service for researchers and decision-makers |
title_full_unstemmed | The CEEDER database of evidence reviews: An open-access evidence service for researchers and decision-makers |
title_short | The CEEDER database of evidence reviews: An open-access evidence service for researchers and decision-makers |
title_sort | ceeder database of evidence reviews: an open-access evidence service for researchers and decision-makers |
topic | Short Communication |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7474817/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32922207 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.08.021 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT konnoko theceederdatabaseofevidencereviewsanopenaccessevidenceserviceforresearchersanddecisionmakers AT chengsamanthah theceederdatabaseofevidencereviewsanopenaccessevidenceserviceforresearchersanddecisionmakers AT ealesjacqualyn theceederdatabaseofevidencereviewsanopenaccessevidenceserviceforresearchersanddecisionmakers AT framptongeoff theceederdatabaseofevidencereviewsanopenaccessevidenceserviceforresearchersanddecisionmakers AT kohlchristian theceederdatabaseofevidencereviewsanopenaccessevidenceserviceforresearchersanddecisionmakers AT livoreilbarbara theceederdatabaseofevidencereviewsanopenaccessevidenceserviceforresearchersanddecisionmakers AT macurabiljana theceederdatabaseofevidencereviewsanopenaccessevidenceserviceforresearchersanddecisionmakers AT olearybethanc theceederdatabaseofevidencereviewsanopenaccessevidenceserviceforresearchersanddecisionmakers AT randallnicolap theceederdatabaseofevidencereviewsanopenaccessevidenceserviceforresearchersanddecisionmakers AT taylorjessicaj theceederdatabaseofevidencereviewsanopenaccessevidenceserviceforresearchersanddecisionmakers AT woodcockpaul theceederdatabaseofevidencereviewsanopenaccessevidenceserviceforresearchersanddecisionmakers AT pullinandrews theceederdatabaseofevidencereviewsanopenaccessevidenceserviceforresearchersanddecisionmakers AT konnoko ceederdatabaseofevidencereviewsanopenaccessevidenceserviceforresearchersanddecisionmakers AT chengsamanthah ceederdatabaseofevidencereviewsanopenaccessevidenceserviceforresearchersanddecisionmakers AT ealesjacqualyn ceederdatabaseofevidencereviewsanopenaccessevidenceserviceforresearchersanddecisionmakers AT framptongeoff ceederdatabaseofevidencereviewsanopenaccessevidenceserviceforresearchersanddecisionmakers AT kohlchristian ceederdatabaseofevidencereviewsanopenaccessevidenceserviceforresearchersanddecisionmakers AT livoreilbarbara ceederdatabaseofevidencereviewsanopenaccessevidenceserviceforresearchersanddecisionmakers AT macurabiljana ceederdatabaseofevidencereviewsanopenaccessevidenceserviceforresearchersanddecisionmakers AT olearybethanc ceederdatabaseofevidencereviewsanopenaccessevidenceserviceforresearchersanddecisionmakers AT randallnicolap ceederdatabaseofevidencereviewsanopenaccessevidenceserviceforresearchersanddecisionmakers AT taylorjessicaj ceederdatabaseofevidencereviewsanopenaccessevidenceserviceforresearchersanddecisionmakers AT woodcockpaul ceederdatabaseofevidencereviewsanopenaccessevidenceserviceforresearchersanddecisionmakers AT pullinandrews ceederdatabaseofevidencereviewsanopenaccessevidenceserviceforresearchersanddecisionmakers |