Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Random and Systematic Errors01:20

Random and Systematic Errors

15.1K
Scientists always try their best to record measurements with the utmost accuracy and precision. However, sometimes errors do occur. These errors can be random or systematic. Random errors are observed due to the inconsistency or fluctuation in the measurement process, or variations in the quantity itself that is being measured. Such errors fluctuate from being greater than or less than the true value in repeated measurements. Consider a scientist measuring the length of an earthworm using a...
15.1K
Systematic Sampling Method01:17

Systematic Sampling Method

13.3K
Sampling is a technique to select a portion (or subset) of the larger population and study that portion (the sample) to gain information about the population. Data are the result of sampling from a population. The sampling method ensures that samples are drawn without bias and accurately represent the population. Because measuring the entire population in a study is not practical, researchers use samples to represent the population of interest.
Systematic sampling is one of the simplest methods...
13.3K
Propagation of Uncertainty from Systematic Error01:10

Propagation of Uncertainty from Systematic Error

1.5K
The atomic mass of an element varies due to the relative ratio of its isotopes. A sample's relative proportion of oxygen isotopes influences its average atomic mass. For instance, if we were to measure the atomic mass of oxygen from a sample, the mass would be a weighted average of the isotopic masses of oxygen in that sample. Since a single sample is not likely to perfectly reflect the true atomic mass of oxygen for all the molecules of oxygen on Earth, the mass we obtain from this...
1.5K
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors01:15

Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors

11.0K
In the case of systematic errors, the sources can be identified, and the errors can be subsequently minimized by addressing these sources. According to the source, systematic errors can be divided into sampling, instrumental, methodological, and personal errors.
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
11.0K
Chemical Equilibria: Systematic Approach to Equilibrium Calculations01:21

Chemical Equilibria: Systematic Approach to Equilibrium Calculations

1.5K
Equilibrium calculations for systems involving multiple equilibria are often complex. For example, to calculate the solubility of a sparingly soluble salt in an aqueous solution in the presence of a common ion, one must consider all the equilibria in this solution. Calculations for these systems can be complicated and tedious, so a systematic approach with a series of steps is often helpful. The process is detailed below.
The first step is to identify all the chemical reactions involved, The...
1.5K
Review and Preview01:10

Review and Preview

8.4K
In statistics, several tools are used to interpret the data. Measures of central tendency represent the characteristics of the data, such as mean, median, and mode. Additionally, measures of variance like standard deviation and range are used to find the spread of data from the mean. Relative standing measures the distance between data locations. Commonly used measures of relative standings are percentile, z score, and quartiles.
Percentiles are a type of fractile that partition data into...
8.4K

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by
Same author

Evidence of anticipatory forest use behaviours under policy introduction: a systematic map protocol.

Environmental evidence·2024
Same author

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

Campbell systematic reviews·2023
Same author

Changing patterns in reporting and sharing of review data in systematic reviews with meta-analysis of the effects of interventions: cross sectional meta-research study.

BMJ (Clinical research ed.)·2022
Same author

Evidence of the impacts of metal mining and the effectiveness of mining mitigation measures on social-ecological systems in Arctic and boreal regions: a systematic map.

Environmental evidence·2022
Same author

The evidence synthesis and meta-analysis in R conference (ESMARConf): levelling the playing field of conference accessibility and equitability.

Systematic reviews·2022
Same author

Citationchaser: A tool for transparent and efficient forward and backward citation chasing in systematic searching.

Research synthesis methods·2022

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Feb 4, 2026

Author Spotlight: Learning Systematic Bronchoscopy in a Simulation-Base Setting
04:47

Author Spotlight: Learning Systematic Bronchoscopy in a Simulation-Base Setting

Published on: June 23, 2023

3.5K

Predicting the time needed for environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps.

Neal R Haddaway1,2, Martin J Westgate3

  • 1Mistra EviEM, Stockholm Environment Institute, Linnégatan 87D, Stockholm, Sweden.

Conservation Biology : the Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology
|October 5, 2018
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Estimating the time for systematic reviews (SRs) and systematic maps (SMs) is crucial. This study quantizes SR and SM resource needs, revealing metadata extraction and critical appraisal are surprisingly time-intensive.

Keywords:
carga laboralcompromiso de tiempocostcostoefficiencyeficienciaevidence synthesisliterature reviewrevisión de literaturasíntesis de evidenciastime commitmentworkload工作量成本投入时间效率文献综述证据综合

More Related Videos

Author Spotlight: Demonstrating Systematic Endobronchial Ultrasound to New Endoscopists
05:22

Author Spotlight: Demonstrating Systematic Endobronchial Ultrasound to New Endoscopists

Published on: August 11, 2023

2.8K
Reporter-based Growth Assay for Systematic Analysis of Protein Degradation
07:47

Reporter-based Growth Assay for Systematic Analysis of Protein Degradation

Published on: November 6, 2014

11.1K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Feb 4, 2026

Author Spotlight: Learning Systematic Bronchoscopy in a Simulation-Base Setting
04:47

Author Spotlight: Learning Systematic Bronchoscopy in a Simulation-Base Setting

Published on: June 23, 2023

3.5K
Author Spotlight: Demonstrating Systematic Endobronchial Ultrasound to New Endoscopists
05:22

Author Spotlight: Demonstrating Systematic Endobronchial Ultrasound to New Endoscopists

Published on: August 11, 2023

2.8K
Reporter-based Growth Assay for Systematic Analysis of Protein Degradation
07:47

Reporter-based Growth Assay for Systematic Analysis of Protein Degradation

Published on: November 6, 2014

11.1K

Area of Science:

  • Environmental Science
  • Evidence Synthesis

Background:

  • Systematic reviews (SRs) and systematic maps (SMs) are vital for evidence synthesis but are resource-intensive.
  • Estimates of the time and resources required for SRs and SMs are largely anecdotal.
  • Maximizing transparency and minimizing bias are key goals in these rigorous review processes.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To estimate the average time requirements for conducting systematic reviews and systematic maps.
  • To identify the most time-consuming stages within the SR and SM processes.
  • To develop a tool for predicting the time needed for future SRs and SMs.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of 66 systematic reviews and 20 systematic maps from the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) published between 2012 and 2017.
  • Survey of 33 experienced systematic reviewers to gather data on the completion rates of different review stages.
  • Development of a software tool to predict time requirements based on planned methods and evidence base.

Main Results:

  • The average CEE systematic review requires an estimated 164 days (full-time equivalent).
  • The average CEE systematic map requires an estimated 211 days (excluding critical appraisal).
  • Metadata extraction and critical appraisal were found to be as time-consuming, or more so, than title/abstract screening, particularly for systematic maps.

Conclusions:

  • This study provides evidence-based estimates for the time and resources needed for SRs and SMs.
  • Findings can inform better planning of systematic reviews and maps, directing efforts to streamline time-intensive stages.
  • Improved reporting of methods and results by authors can enhance future predictions of review effort.