SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Standards of conduct and reporting in evidence syntheses that could inform environmental policy and management decisions
7 references·0 citing·35 second hop
Standards of conduct and reporting in evidence syntheses that could inform environmental policy and management decisions (2022)Standards of conduct and reporting in evi…Quantifying and addressing the prevalence and bias of study designs in the environmental and social sciences (2020)Quantifying and addressing th…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 (2018)ROSES RepOrting standards for…The reliability of evidence review methodology in environmental science and conservation (2016)The reliability of evidence r…Making literature reviews more reliable through application of lessons from systematic reviews (2015)Making literature reviews mor…The Policy Role of Systematic Reviews: Past, Present and Future (2014)The Policy Role of Systematic…Evaluating and improving the reliability of evidence syntheses in conservation and environmental science: A methodology (2014)Evaluating and improving the …Are review articles a reliable source of evidence to support conservation and environmental management? A comparison with medicine (2006)Are review articles a reliabl…Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide (2006)Introduction to Meta‐Analysis (2009)The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)An automated approach to identifying search terms for systematic reviews using keyword co‐occurrence networks (2019)Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them (2020)Climate change and industrial F-gases: A critical and systematic review of developments, sociotechnical systems and policy options for reducing synthetic greenhouse gas emissions (2021)Systematic Reviews: Rationale for systematic reviews (1994)On ‘Systematic’ Reviews of Research Literatures: A ‘narrative’ response to Evans & Benefield (2001)A systematic review of the reliability and validity of discrete choice experiments in valuing non-market environmental goods (2016)Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence for environmental policy and management: an overview of different methodological options (2019)Systematic review of the outcomes and trade-offs of ten types of decarbonization policy instruments (2021)The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. (1979)Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis (1988)Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research (1991)Contribution of Systematic Reviews to Management Decisions (2013)Evidence‐based restoration in the Anthropocene—from acting with purpose to acting for impact (2018)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Evidence maps and evidence gaps: evidence review mapping as a method for collating and appraising evidence reviews to inform research and policy (2017)Simplifying the selection of evidence synthesis methods to inform environmental decisions: A guide for decision makers and scientists (2017)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)The ABC of systematic literature review: the basic methodological guidance for beginners (2020)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology: a PRISMA extension (2021)Revealing the theoretical basis of gamification: A systematic review and analysis of theory in research on gamification, serious games and game-based learning (2021)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (2016)AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both (2017)Tapping into non-English-language science for the conservation of global biodiversity (2021)Growth of non‐English‐language literature on biodiversity conservation (2022)Leveraging AI to improve evidence synthesis in conservation (2024)Informing conservation decisions through evidence synthesis and communication (2020)Quality assessment of meta-analyses on soil organic carbon (2023)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2018ROSES RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses: pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps944 cited
  • 2015Making literature reviews more reliable through application of lessons from systematic reviews417 cited
  • 2014Evaluating and improving the reliability of evidence syntheses in conservation and environmental science: A methodology147 cited
  • 2006Are review articles a reliable source of evidence to support conservation and environmental management? A comparison with medicine136 cited
  • 2020Quantifying and addressing the prevalence and bias of study designs in the environmental and social sciences135 cited
  • 2014The Policy Role of Systematic Reviews: Past, Present and Future82 cited
  • 2016The reliability of evidence review methodology in environmental science and conservation64 cited

Cited by

No citing works inside the corpus for this window.

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work