Systematic review pilot project: final report Public Deposited

http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/defaults/0c483p28m

Descriptions

Attribute NameValues
Creator
Abstract or Summary
  • This report documents an Oregon Department of Forestry pilot project conducted through the Institute for Natural Resources at Oregon State University on a science synthesis method known as systematic review- a rigorous, transparent literature review technique developed and now widely used in clinical medicine. A systematic review focuses narrowly on a single question and uses an explicit protocol for finding, screening, grading and integrating all primary research relevant to that question. Systematic review is now being explored as a means to collate scientific evidence in natural resource conservation. But natural resource management and science differ significantly from clinical medicine, and much remains to be learned about adapting systematic review techniques for use in conservation research. ODF commissioned this project to learn more about applying systematic review to technical natural resource questions. The project investigated the feasibility of using systematic review techniques to locate and synthesize technical information regarding the effectiveness of the salmonid habitat restoration practice of placing of large wood into streams. A key question was whether the systematic review process could be simplified and used to credibly assess scientific research concerning a topic that is relevant to ODF and their stakeholders. This report summarizes the project process and key lessons learned from testing systematic review in the context of natural resource science. A companion document- “Does wood placement in Pacific northwestern North American streams affect salmonid abundance, growth, survival or habitat complexity? A pilot test of systematic review techniques” covers findings of the review itself.
Resource Type
Date Available
Date Issued
Non-Academic Affiliation
Keyword
Table of Contents
  • Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................... 2; Key findings ............................................................................................................................................. 2; 1. Purpose of this document....................................................................................................................... 7; 2. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 7; 3. Background............................................................................................................................................. 7; 4. Project description.................................................................................................................................. 9; 5. Review process ........................................................................................................................................ 9; 5a. Question development ....................................................................................................................... 9; 5b. Recruitment of expert reviewers.................................................................................................... 10; 5c. Protocol and search strategy........................................................................................................... 11; 5d. Stakeholder involvement ................................................................................................................ 11; 5e. Finding and filtering the evidence .................................................................................................. 13; 5f. Evaluating and collating the evidence ............................................................................................ 13; 5g. Review document and “lessons learned” workshop ..................................................................... 14; 6. Pilot SER Discussion and Evaluation Questions................................................................................. 15; Were the draft evidence quality hierarchies possible to apply? ........................................................... 16; Are there ways the hierarchy could be improved? ............................................................................... 18; What level of expertise was/is required to apply the hierarchies? ....................................................... 18; How was gray literature handled in the evidence quality hierarchy?.................................................. 18; How is gray literature best addressed in the search and evaluation process?..................................... 18; What advantage, if any, did the SER-like process used have over a traditional literature review?..... 19; Are there ways of making the process more cost effective and/or efficient? ........................................ 19; What are some possible means of getting SER-like work done? .......................................................... 20; Under what circumstances would this process be most valuable?....................................................... 21; Is there some initial screening that could be done to assess 1) the feasibility and 2) the costs/benefits of applying the SER approach? ............................................................................................................ 21; 7. Summary and next steps ....................................................................................................................... 21; References Cited ........................................................................................................................................ 23; Appendix: Pilot Systematic Review Protocol and Revised Search Strategy.......................................... 24
Rights Statement
Publisher
Peer Reviewed
Language
Replaces
Additional Information
  • description.provenance : Made available in DSpace on 2010-01-14T23:16:22Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Systematic Review Pilot Project Final Report.pdf: 170909 bytes, checksum: 2ad52027c4ee1ab1f1e15d56a47a893f (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008-02
  • description.provenance : Approved for entry into archive by Linda Kathman(linda.kathman@oregonstate.edu) on 2010-01-14T23:16:22Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Systematic Review Pilot Project Final Report.pdf: 170909 bytes, checksum: 2ad52027c4ee1ab1f1e15d56a47a893f (MD5)
  • Reports and Publications::Other Reports and Publications
  • description.provenance : Submitted by Amy Ewing (ewinga@onid.orst.edu) on 2010-01-14T21:13:24Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Systematic Review Pilot Project Final Report.pdf: 170909 bytes, checksum: 2ad52027c4ee1ab1f1e15d56a47a893f (MD5)

Relationships

In Administrative Set:
Last modified: 09/22/2017

Downloadable Content

Download PDF
Citations:

EndNote | Zotero | Mendeley

Items