The CEEDER database of evidence reviews: An open-access evidence service for researchers and decision-makers

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2020.08.021

. 2020 Dec:114:256-262.

doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2020.08.021. Epub 2020 Sep 6.

The CEEDER database of evidence reviews: An open-access evidence service for researchers and decision-makers

Affiliations

¹ CEE Centre UK, School of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Gwynedd, LL57 2UW, UK.
² CEE Centre USA, Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, American Museum of Natural History, New York City, NY, 10012, USA.
³ CEE Centre UK, European Centre for Environment and Human Health, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Knowledge Spa, Royal Cornwall Hospital, Truro, Cornwall, TR1 3HD, UK.
⁴ Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC), Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
⁵ Institute for Biosafety in Plant Biotechnology, Julius Kühn-Institute, Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, Erwin-Baur-Straße 27, Quedlinburg, Germany.
⁶ CEE Centre France, Coopaname, Le Luc en Provence, France.
⁷ CEE Centre Sweden, Stockholm Environment Institute, Linnégatan 87D, Stockholm, Sweden.
⁸ Department of Environment and Geography, University of York, YO10 5NG, UK.
⁹ School of Science, Engineering and Environment, University of Salford, Manchester, M5 4WX, UK.
¹⁰ CEE Centre UK, Centre for Evidence-based Agriculture, Harper Adams University, Newport, Shropshire, TF10 8NB, UK.
¹¹ CEE Centre Canada, Canadian Centre for Evidence-based Conservation, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S5B6 Canada.
¹² Joint Nature Conservation Committee, UK.

PMID: 32922207
PMCID: PMC7474817
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2020.08.021

The CEEDER database of evidence reviews: An open-access evidence service for researchers and decision-makers

Ko Konno et al. Environ Sci Policy. 2020 Dec.

. 2020 Dec:114:256-262.

doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2020.08.021. Epub 2020 Sep 6.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ CEE Centre UK, School of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Gwynedd, LL57 2UW, UK.
² CEE Centre USA, Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, American Museum of Natural History, New York City, NY, 10012, USA.
³ CEE Centre UK, European Centre for Environment and Human Health, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Knowledge Spa, Royal Cornwall Hospital, Truro, Cornwall, TR1 3HD, UK.
⁴ Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC), Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
⁵ Institute for Biosafety in Plant Biotechnology, Julius Kühn-Institute, Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, Erwin-Baur-Straße 27, Quedlinburg, Germany.
⁶ CEE Centre France, Coopaname, Le Luc en Provence, France.
⁷ CEE Centre Sweden, Stockholm Environment Institute, Linnégatan 87D, Stockholm, Sweden.
⁸ Department of Environment and Geography, University of York, YO10 5NG, UK.
⁹ School of Science, Engineering and Environment, University of Salford, Manchester, M5 4WX, UK.
¹⁰ CEE Centre UK, Centre for Evidence-based Agriculture, Harper Adams University, Newport, Shropshire, TF10 8NB, UK.
¹¹ CEE Centre Canada, Canadian Centre for Evidence-based Conservation, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S5B6 Canada.
¹² Joint Nature Conservation Committee, UK.

PMID: 32922207
PMCID: PMC7474817
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2020.08.021

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Critical appraisal; Decision support tool; Evidence synthesis; Evidence-based; Policy making; Risk of bias.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Figures

**Fig. 1**
CEEDER logic model. Evidence reviews are collated, assessed and indexed in an open-access database for decision-makers and researchers.

See this image and copyright information in PMC

Cited by

Research effort devoted to regulating and supporting ecosystem services by environmental scientists and economists.
Kadykalo AN, Kelly LA, Berberi A, Reid JL, Findlay CS. Kadykalo AN, et al. PLoS One. 2021 May 28;16(5):e0252463. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252463. eCollection 2021. PLoS One. 2021. PMID: 34048482 Free PMC article.
Potential types of bias when estimating causal effects in environmental research and how to interpret them.
Konno K, Gibbons J, Lewis R, Pullin AS. Konno K, et al. Environ Evid. 2024 Feb 7;13(1):1. doi: 10.1186/s13750-024-00324-7. Environ Evid. 2024. PMID: 39294842 Free PMC article.
What evidence exists on the links between natural climate solutions and climate change mitigation outcomes in subtropical and tropical terrestrial regions? A systematic map protocol.
Cheng SH, Costedoat S, Sterling EJ, Chamberlain C, Jagadish A, Lichtenthal P, Nowakowski AJ, Taylor A, Tinsman J, Canty SWJ, Holland MB, Jones KW, Mills M, Morales-Hidalgo D, Sprenkle-Hyppolite S, Wiggins M, Mascia MB, Muñoz Brenes CL. Cheng SH, et al. Environ Evid. 2022;11(1):15. doi: 10.1186/s13750-022-00268-w. Epub 2022 Apr 19. Environ Evid. 2022. PMID: 35465308 Free PMC article.
Verifying authors' claims to have conducted a Systematic Review? A checklist for journal editors and peer reviewers.
Pullin AS, Macura B. Pullin AS, et al. Environ Evid. 2025 May 14;14(1):8. doi: 10.1186/s13750-025-00361-w. Environ Evid. 2025. PMID: 40361195 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
Standards of conduct and reporting in evidence syntheses that could inform environmental policy and management decisions.
Pullin AS, Cheng SH, Jackson JD, Eales J, Envall I, Fada SJ, Frampton GK, Harper M, Kadykalo AN, Kohl C, Konno K, Livoreil B, Ouédraogo DY, O'Leary BC, Pullin G, Randall N, Rees R, Smith A, Sordello R, Sterling EJ, Twardek WM, Woodcock P. Pullin AS, et al. Environ Evid. 2022 Apr 19;11(1):16. doi: 10.1186/s13750-022-00269-9. Environ Evid. 2022. PMID: 39294776 Free PMC article.

References

1. Air Quality Expert Group . UK Air Information Resource; 2020. Estimation of changes in air pollution emissions, concentrations and exposure during the COVID-19 outbreak in the UK.
1. Aronson J.K., Barends E., Boruch R., Brennan M., Chalmers I., Chislett J., Cunliffe-Jones P., Dahlgren A., Gaarder M., Haines A., Heneghan C., Matthews R., Maynard B., Oxman A.D., Oxman M., Pullin A., Randall N., Roddam H., Schoonees A., Sharples J., Stewart R., Stott J., Tallis R., Thomas N., Vale L. Key concepts for making informed choices. Nature. 2019;572:303–306. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-02407-9. - DOI - PubMed
1. Bayliss H.R., Haddaway N.R., Eales J., Frampton G.K., James K.L. Updating and amending systematic reviews and systematic maps in environmental management. Environ. Evid. 2016;5:20. doi: 10.1186/s13750-016-0073-8. - DOI
1. Bayliss H.R., Wilcox A., Stewart G.B., Randall N.P. Does research information meet the needs of stakeholders? Exploring evidence selection in the global management of invasive species. Evid. Policy. 2012;8:37–56. doi: 10.1332/174426412X620128. - DOI
1. CEE . 2018. Guidelines and Standards for Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management VERSION 5.0. http://www.environmentalevidence.org/information-for-authors.

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources
- Europe PubMed Central
- PubMed Central

[1] Air Quality Expert Group . UK Air Information Resource; 2020. Estimation of changes in air pollution emissions, concentrations and exposure during the COVID-19 outbreak in the UK.

[2] Air Quality Expert Group . UK Air Information Resource; 2020. Estimation of changes in air pollution emissions, concentrations and exposure during the COVID-19 outbreak in the UK.

[3] Aronson J.K., Barends E., Boruch R., Brennan M., Chalmers I., Chislett J., Cunliffe-Jones P., Dahlgren A., Gaarder M., Haines A., Heneghan C., Matthews R., Maynard B., Oxman A.D., Oxman M., Pullin A., Randall N., Roddam H., Schoonees A., Sharples J., Stewart R., Stott J., Tallis R., Thomas N., Vale L. Key concepts for making informed choices. Nature. 2019;572:303–306. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-02407-9. - DOI - PubMed

[4] Aronson J.K., Barends E., Boruch R., Brennan M., Chalmers I., Chislett J., Cunliffe-Jones P., Dahlgren A., Gaarder M., Haines A., Heneghan C., Matthews R., Maynard B., Oxman A.D., Oxman M., Pullin A., Randall N., Roddam H., Schoonees A., Sharples J., Stewart R., Stott J., Tallis R., Thomas N., Vale L. Key concepts for making informed choices. Nature. 2019;572:303–306. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-02407-9. - DOI - PubMed

[5] Bayliss H.R., Haddaway N.R., Eales J., Frampton G.K., James K.L. Updating and amending systematic reviews and systematic maps in environmental management. Environ. Evid. 2016;5:20. doi: 10.1186/s13750-016-0073-8. - DOI

[6] Bayliss H.R., Haddaway N.R., Eales J., Frampton G.K., James K.L. Updating and amending systematic reviews and systematic maps in environmental management. Environ. Evid. 2016;5:20. doi: 10.1186/s13750-016-0073-8. - DOI

[7] Bayliss H.R., Wilcox A., Stewart G.B., Randall N.P. Does research information meet the needs of stakeholders? Exploring evidence selection in the global management of invasive species. Evid. Policy. 2012;8:37–56. doi: 10.1332/174426412X620128. - DOI

[8] Bayliss H.R., Wilcox A., Stewart G.B., Randall N.P. Does research information meet the needs of stakeholders? Exploring evidence selection in the global management of invasive species. Evid. Policy. 2012;8:37–56. doi: 10.1332/174426412X620128. - DOI

[9] CEE . 2018. Guidelines and Standards for Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management VERSION 5.0. http://www.environmentalevidence.org/information-for-authors.

[10] CEE . 2018. Guidelines and Standards for Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management VERSION 5.0. http://www.environmentalevidence.org/information-for-authors.

Save citation to file

Email citation

Add to Collections

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search

Create a file for external citation management software

Your RSS Feed

The CEEDER database of evidence reviews: An open-access evidence service for researchers and decision-makers

Affiliations

The CEEDER database of evidence reviews: An open-access evidence service for researchers and decision-makers

Authors

Affiliations

Abstract

Conflict of interest statement

Figures

Similar articles

Cited by

References

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources