期刊
ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL
卷 92-93, 期 -, 页码 578-584出版社
PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2015.07.011
关键词
Evidence-based practice; Evidence reviews; Evidence-based medicine; Evidence synthesis; Systematic review
资金
- NERC [NE/L00836X/1] Funding Source: UKRI
- Natural Environment Research Council [NE/L00836X/1] Funding Source: researchfish
The volume of scientific literature continues to expand and decision-makers are faced with increasingly unmanageable volumes of evidence to assess. Systematic reviews (SRs) are powerful tools that aim to provide comprehensive, transparent, reproducible and updateable summaries of evidence. SR methods were developed, and have been employed, in healthcare for more than two decades, and they are now widely used across a broad range of topics, including environmental management and social interventions in crime and justice, education, international development, and social welfare. Despite these successes and the increasing acceptance of SR methods as a 'gold standard' in evidence-informed policy and practice, misconceptions still remain regarding their applicability. The aim of this article is to separate fact from fiction, addressing twelve common misconceptions that can influence the decision as to whether a SR is the most appropriate method for evidence synthesis for a given topic. Through examples, we illustrate the flexibility of SR methods and demonstrate their suitability for addressing issues on environmental health and chemical risk assessment. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All tights reserved.
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据