Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40560911›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

The impact and return-on-investment of evidence-based practice in conservation and environmental management: A machine learning-assisted scoping review protocol.

Alec P Christie, Philip A Martin, Nigel G Taylor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Alec P ChristieCentre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8465-8410
Philip A MartinBasque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), Leioa, Bizkaia, Spain.
Nigel G TaylorDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence-based Practice (EBP) is a vital principle, with its origins in the 1970s, that has transformed the disciplines of medicine and healthcare. The use of best available evidence to inform decisions and best practice has since spread across other disciplines, including in the environmental sciences through evidence-based conservation and environmental management. However, ironically there only appears to be a single scoping review on the impacts and return-on-investment of EBP in healthcare and it is unclear whether any such evidence exists in the broad field of conservation and environmental management. In this scoping review, we aim to explore the extent to which evaluations of the impacts and return-on-investment of EBP and evidence use have been conducted in conservation and environmental management on both human and environmental outcomes. We will search at least ten different electronic bibliographic platforms, databases, and search engines for published and grey literature, from 1992 to 2025 - there will be no geographical or language restrictions on the documents included. A machine learning-assisted review process will be followed using open source tools (ASReview and SysRev) and following the comprehensive SYstematic review Methodology Blending Active Learning and Snowballing (SYMBALS). The findings from the scoping review will be useful to inform organisations and practitioners considering implementing EBP on its benefits and costs and will also highlight potential research gaps on the impact of EBP and evidence use.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesEvidence-Based PracticeMachine LearningHumansScoping Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID40560911
PMCPMC12814508

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.