Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Decisions in policy and practice should always be based on the best available evidence, but synthesising the evidence is often considered an insurmountable task. Reviews aim to summarise (synthesise) the evidence in a form that is readily digestible by decision makers. Systematic reviews (SRs) are emerging as an important tool and industry standard in reviewing evidence across many disciplines. SRs are transparent, repeatable and objective, reducing bias and maximising reliability. SRs are typically much less susceptible to bias than traditional reviews, many meta-analyses and other syntheses as a result of strict guidelines and highly detailed a priori methods. SR began in medicine and revolutionised medical policy and practice by pooling disparate studies and identifying common trends that may be missed by individual studies. SRs are now also used in public health and in environmental and social sciences to aid in decision making. SR in environmental management was adapted in response to a need for answers to controversial questions, questions where doubt existed about the reliability of the evidence and where the evidence base appeared to lack consensus. SR is a valuable tool for any researcher provided they assemble the right team and have the necessary support available. They can complement longer postgraduate study and involve the development of valuable transferable skills including searching, critical appraisal, quantitative and qualitative analysis, scientific writing and science communication. Along with synthesising evidence to provide answers to questions, SRs can help in formulating hypotheses, identify knowledge gaps and highlight deficiencies in methodologies used in published research.
Haddaway et al. (Tue,) studied this question.