↓ Skip to main content

Contribution of Systematic Reviews to Management Decisions

Overview of attention for article published in Conservation Biology, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
38 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
74 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
253 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Contribution of Systematic Reviews to Management Decisions
Published in
Conservation Biology, August 2013
DOI 10.1111/cobi.12114
Pubmed ID
Authors

CARLY N. COOK, HUGH P. POSSINGHAM, RICHARD A. FULLER

Abstract

Systematic reviews comprehensively summarize evidence about the effectiveness of conservation interventions. We investigated the contribution to management decisions made by this growing body of literature. We identified 43 systematic reviews of conservation evidence, 23 of which drew some concrete conclusions relevant to management. Most reviews addressed conservation interventions relevant to policy decisions; only 35% considered practical on-the-ground management interventions. The majority of reviews covered only a small fraction of the geographic and taxonomic breadth they aimed to address (median = 13% of relevant countries and 16% of relevant taxa). The likelihood that reviews contained at least some implications for management tended to increase as geographic coverage increased and to decline as taxonomic breadth increased. These results suggest the breadth of a systematic review requires careful consideration. Reviews identified a mean of 312 relevant primary studies but excluded 88% of these because of deficiencies in design or a failure to meet other inclusion criteria. Reviews summarized on average 284 data sets and 112 years of research activity, yet the likelihood that their results had at least some implications for management did not increase as the amount of primary research summarized increased. In some cases, conclusions were elusive despite the inclusion of hundreds of data sets and years of cumulative research activity. Systematic reviews are an important part of the conservation decision making tool kit, although we believe the benefits of systematic reviews could be significantly enhanced by increasing the number of reviews focused on questions of direct relevance to on-the-ground managers; defining a more focused geographic and taxonomic breadth that better reflects available data; including a broader range of evidence types; and appraising the cost-effectiveness of interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 253 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 2%
United Kingdom 3 1%
Brazil 3 1%
Italy 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Other 3 1%
Unknown 230 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 58 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 17%
Student > Master 42 17%
Student > Bachelor 19 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 6%
Other 44 17%
Unknown 33 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 88 35%
Environmental Science 86 34%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 5 2%
Engineering 4 2%
Other 17 7%
Unknown 46 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 August 2016.
All research outputs
#1,553,742
of 24,797,973 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Biology
#897
of 4,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,369
of 205,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Biology
#18
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,797,973 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 205,208 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.