Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Blind Procedures

Blind Procedures

Ideally, the people who observe and record the children’s behavior are unaware of who was assigned to the experimental or control group, in order to control for experimenter bias. Experimenter bias refers to the possibility that a researcher’s expectations might skew the results of the study. Remember, conducting an experiment requires a lot of planning, and the people involved in the research project have a vested interest in supporting their hypotheses. If the observers knew which...

False Memories

False Memories

False memories represent a cognitive distortion in which individuals recall events that did not happen, or remember them in an altered form. This phenomenon highlights the brain's constructive nature in processing and recalling memories, emphasizing that memory is not a perfect representation of past events but rather a dynamic reconstruction influenced by various factors.
One primary source of false memories is misattribution, where individuals incorrectly associate external information...

The Scientific Method

The Scientific Method

Research is what makes the difference between facts and opinions. Facts are observable realities, and opinions are personal judgments, conclusions, or attitudes that may or may not be accurate. In the scientific community, facts can be established only using evidence collected through empirical research.

The Scientific Method

The Scientific Method

The scientific method is a detailed, empirical problem-solving process used by biologists and other scientists. This iterative approach involves formulating a question based on observation, developing a testable potential explanation for the observation (called a hypothesis), making and testing predictions based on the hypothesis, and using the findings to create new hypotheses and predictions.
Generally, predictions are tested using carefully-designed experiments. Based on the outcome of these...

Hazard Ratio

Hazard Ratio

The hazard ratio (HR) is a widely used measure in clinical trials to compare the risk of events, such as death or disease recurrence, between two groups over time. It reflects the ratio of hazard rates—the instantaneous risk of the event occurring—between a treatment group and a control group. This measure provides valuable insights into the relative effectiveness of a treatment by assessing how the risk of an event differs between the two groups.
For example, in a clinical trial...

Regression Toward the Mean

Regression Toward the Mean

Regression toward the mean (“RTM”) is a phenomenon in which extremely high or low values—for example, and individual’s blood pressure at a particular moment—appear closer to a group’s average upon remeasuring. Although this statistical peculiarity is the result of random error and chance, it has been problematic across various medical, scientific, financial and psychological applications. In particular, RTM, if not taken into account, can interfere when...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Existing evidence related to soil retention of phosphorus from on-site wastewater treatment systems in boreal and temperate climate zones: a systematic map.

Environmental evidence·2024

Same author

Ten principles for generating accessible and useable COVID-19 environmental science and a fit-for-purpose evidence base.

Ecological solutions and evidence·2024

Same author

Language inclusion in ecological systematic reviews and maps: Barriers and perspectives.

Research synthesis methods·2024

Same author

On the use of computer-assistance to facilitate systematic mapping.

Campbell systematic reviews·2023

Same author

A suggested data structure for transparent and repeatable reporting of bibliographic searching.

Campbell systematic reviews·2023

Same author

<i>PRISMA2020</i>: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis.

Campbell systematic reviews·2023

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Apr 3, 2026

Evidence-based Knowledge Synthesis and Hypothesis Validation: Navigating Biomedical Knowledge Bases via Explainable AI and Agentic Systems

Evidence-based Knowledge Synthesis and Hypothesis Validation: Navigating Biomedical Knowledge Bases via Explainable AI and Agentic Systems

Published on: June 13, 2025

Systematic reviews: Separating fact from fiction.

Neal R Haddaway¹, Gary S Bilotta²

¹MISTRA EviEM, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden.

Environment International

|September 16, 2015

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

Systematic reviews (SRs) offer comprehensive evidence summaries across many fields. This article clarifies common misconceptions about SR applicability, demonstrating their flexibility for diverse topics like environmental health.

Keywords:

Evidence reviews Evidence synthesis Evidence-based medicine Evidence-based practice Systematic review

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Apr 3, 2026

Evidence-based Knowledge Synthesis and Hypothesis Validation: Navigating Biomedical Knowledge Bases via Explainable AI and Agentic Systems

Evidence-based Knowledge Synthesis and Hypothesis Validation: Navigating Biomedical Knowledge Bases via Explainable AI and Agentic Systems

Published on: June 13, 2025

Area of Science:

Evidence synthesis
Scientific literature analysis
Interdisciplinary research

Background:

Growing scientific literature presents challenges for decision-makers in evidence assessment.
Systematic reviews (SRs) are established tools for summarizing evidence transparently and reproducibly.
SR methods, originating in healthcare, now span diverse fields like environmental management and social welfare.

Purpose of the Study:

To address and clarify common misconceptions regarding the applicability of systematic reviews (SRs).
To demonstrate the flexibility and suitability of SR methods for various evidence synthesis needs.
To guide decision-makers on when SRs are the most appropriate evidence synthesis approach.

Main Methods:

Identification and analysis of twelve common misconceptions about systematic reviews.
Illustrative examples showcasing the application of SR methods.
Discussion of SR suitability across different subject areas, including environmental health and chemical risk assessment.

Main Results:

SR methods are broadly applicable beyond healthcare, despite persistent misconceptions.
The flexibility of SRs allows for their use in complex areas such as environmental health.
Addressing misconceptions can enhance the appropriate adoption of SRs for evidence-informed policy.

Conclusions:

Systematic reviews are versatile tools applicable to a wide array of scientific disciplines and policy areas.
Clarifying misconceptions is crucial for maximizing the utility of systematic reviews in evidence synthesis.
SR methodology offers a robust framework for addressing complex issues in fields like environmental risk assessment.