Acting in the face of evidentiary ambiguity, bias, and absence arising from systematic reviews in applied environmental science

摘要: Abstract Evidence-based decision-making often depends on some form of a synthesis previous findings. There is growing recognition that systematic reviews, which incorporate critical appraisal evidence, are the gold standard method in applied environmental science. Yet, daily basis, practitioners and decision-makers forced to act even if evidence base guide them insufficient. For example, it not uncommon for review conclude an large but low reliability. also instances where sparse (e.g., one or two empirical studies particular taxa intervention), no additional arises from review. In cases, highlights considerable variability outcomes primary studies, turn generates ambiguity potentially context specific). When ambiguous, biased, lacking new information, must still make management decisions. Waiting new, higher validity research be conducted unrealistic as many decisions urgent. Here, we identify circumstances can lead ambiguity, bias, absence arising reviews provide practical guidance resolve handle these scenarios when encountered. Our perspective attempts highlight that, with synthesis, there may need balance spirit evidence-based reality conservation action time sensitive.