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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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.
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