Beyond PRISMA: Systematic reviews to inform marine science and policy

被引:17
|
作者
O'Leary, Bethan C. [1 ]
Bayliss, Helen R. [1 ]
Haddaway, Neal R. [2 ]
机构
[1] Bangor Univ, Sch Environm Nat Resources & Geog, Ctr Evidence Based Conservat, Bangor LL57 2UW, Gwynedd, Wales
[2] Royal Swedish Acad Sci, MISTRA EviEM, Stockholm, Sweden
关键词
Evidence-based; Reporting standards; Evidence synthesis; CEE guidelines; Environmental evidence; Environmental management; CONSERVATION; GUIDELINES; SUPPORT;
D O I
10.1016/j.marpol.2015.09.026
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
A recent article by Sierra-Correa and Cantera Kintz published in Marine Policy 51 2015 identifies the need for systematic reviews of evidence to inform marine policy and management. To guide their review, the authors apply the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) Statement as a methodology. We identified eighteen systematic reviews published on marine topics between 2008 and 2015. Of those which stated a methodology (N=12), 25% (N=3) applied the PRISMA Statement. PRISMA is a checklist designed by the medical community to improve reporting standards of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, rather than guidelines for their conduct. Relevant guidelines have already been produced by the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. By using PRISMA as a methodology without referring to these guidelines, or worse, post hoc without conducting a full systematic review, authors may unintentionally give the impression of having undertaken a more rigorous review than is in fact the case. Given the apparent increase in systematic reviews of marine and coastal topics, it is vital that appropriate methodology be used. Authors undertaking future reviews should use existing environmental systematic review guidance to help plan and conduct their review. By following these guidelines, standards for marine reviews should increase, ultimately resulting in more rigorous reviews better able to inform future marine science and policy. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:261 / 263
页数:3
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] The PRISMA Statement: A Guideline for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
    Swartz, Martha Kirk
    JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC HEALTH CARE, 2011, 25 (01) : 1 - 2
  • [32] PRISMA Reporting Guidelines for Meta-analyses and Systematic Reviews
    Arya, Shipra
    Kaji, Amy H.
    Boermeester, Marja A.
    JAMA SURGERY, 2021, 156 (08) : 789 - 790
  • [33] The PRISMA 2020 statement: updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
    Galvao, Tais Freire
    Baldin Tiguman, Gustavo Magno
    Sarkis-Onofre, Rafael
    EPIDEMIOLOGIA E SERVICOS DE SAUDE, 2022, 31 (02):
  • [34] BANGLADESH REVIEWS SCIENCE POLICY
    KABIR, M
    NATURE, 1977, 270 (5638) : 553 - 553
  • [35] Science to inform climate policy targets
    不详
    NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE, 2016, 6 (08) : 727 - 727
  • [37] AIDS: Let Science Inform Policy
    Fauci, Anthony S.
    SCIENCE, 2011, 333 (6038) : 13 - 13
  • [38] The PRISMA statement extension for systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analysis: PRISMA-NMA
    Hutton, Brian
    Catala-Lopez, Ferran
    Moher, David
    MEDICINA CLINICA, 2016, 147 (06): : 262 - 266
  • [39] Systematic Reviews to Inform Practice, November/December 2024
    Harris, Nena R.
    Howe-Heyman, Abby
    JOURNAL OF MIDWIFERY & WOMENS HEALTH, 2024, 69 (06) : 969 - 980
  • [40] How far can systematic reviews inform policy development for "wicked" rural health service problems?
    Humphreys, John S.
    Kuipers, Pim
    Wakerman, John
    Wells, Robert
    Jones, Judith A.
    Kinsman, Leigh D.
    AUSTRALIAN HEALTH REVIEW, 2009, 33 (04) : 592 - 600