Quantifying and addressing the prevalence and bias of study designs in the environmental and social sciences

66Citations
Citations of this article
229Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Building trust in science and evidence-based decision-making depends heavily on the credibility of studies and their findings. Researchers employ many different study designs that vary in their risk of bias to evaluate the true effect of interventions or impacts. Here, we empirically quantify, on a large scale, the prevalence of different study designs and the magnitude of bias in their estimates. Randomised designs and controlled observational designs with pre-intervention sampling were used by just 23% of intervention studies in biodiversity conservation, and 36% of intervention studies in social science. We demonstrate, through pairwise within-study comparisons across 49 environmental datasets, that these types of designs usually give less biased estimates than simpler observational designs. We propose a model-based approach to combine study estimates that may suffer from different levels of study design bias, discuss the implications for evidence synthesis, and how to facilitate the use of more credible study designs.

References Powered by Scopus

Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4

59312Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

ROBINS-I: A tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions

11891Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution

6811Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Tapping into non-English-language science for the conservation of global biodiversity

141Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The lost road: Do transportation networks imperil wildlife population persistence?

50Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Growth of non-English-language literature on biodiversity conservation

37Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Christie, A. P., Abecasis, D., Adjeroud, M., Alonso, J. C., Amano, T., Anton, A., … Sutherland, W. J. (2020). Quantifying and addressing the prevalence and bias of study designs in the environmental and social sciences. Nature Communications, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20142-y

Readers over time

‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘25020406080

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 57

51%

Researcher 44

40%

Professor / Associate Prof. 5

5%

Lecturer / Post doc 5

5%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 48

49%

Environmental Science 36

37%

Social Sciences 8

8%

Psychology 5

5%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
Blog Mentions: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0