Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • COMMENT

A fresh approach to evidence synthesis

Systematic reviews have transformed medicine, but a more cost-effective means of appraisal is needed for fields in which data are sparse and patchy, argue William J. Sutherland and Claire F. R. Wordley.
  1. William J. Sutherland

    1. William J. Sutherland is professor of conservation biology at the University of Cambridge, UK, and the founder and director of Conservation Evidence.

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed  Google Scholar

  2. Claire F. R. Wordley

    1. Claire F. R. Wordley is a postdoctoral research associate on the Conservation Evidence project at the University of Cambridge.

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed  Google Scholar

In 1990, researchers conducted a systematic review of studies investigating the use of corticosteroids in women who were at risk of giving birth prematurely1. (The steroids were administered to reduce the chances of the women’s pre-term babies experiencing respiratory issues.) The results of the first of these clinical trials, published in 1972, had indicated that the treatment worked2. But it was not widely adopted, because of concerns about potential side effects and the quality of the evidence. Indeed, the effectiveness of corticosteroids was conclusively established only with the 1990 review. Tens of thousands of lives have probably been saved since then because of this intervention.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 558, 364-366 (2018)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05472-8

References

  1. Crowley, P., Chalmers, I. & Keirse, M. J. BJOG Int. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 97, 11–25 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Liggins, G. C. & Howie, R. N. Pediatrics 50, 515–525 (1972).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sherman, L. W. Evidence-based Policing (Police Foundation, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dicks, L. V., Walsh, J. C. & Sutherland, W. J. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 607–613 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sutherland, W. J., Dicks, L. V., Ockendon, N., Petrovan, S. O. & Smith, R. K. (eds) What Works in Conservation (Open Book, 2018).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Medlin, E. C. & Risch, T. S. Condor 108, 963–965 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Mukherjee, N. et al. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 1097–1109 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Westgate, M. J. et al. Nature Ecol. Evol. 2, 588–590 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. O’Mara-Eves, A., Thomas, J., McNaught, J., Miwa, M. & Ananiadou, S. Syst. Rev. 4, 5 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. James, K. L., Randall, N. P. & Haddaway, N. R. Environ. Evid. 5, 7 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. McKinnon, M. C. Nature 528, 185–187 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Subjects

Latest on:

Nature Careers

Jobs

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing

Search

Advanced search

Quick links