Traditional approaches to reviewing literature may be susceptible to bias and result in incorrect decisions. This is of particular concern when reviews address policy- and practice-relevant questions. Systematic reviews have been introduced as a more rigorous approach to synthesizing evidence across studies; they rely on a suite of evidence-based methods aimed at maximizing rigour and minimizing susceptibility to bias. Despite the increasing popularity of systematic reviews in the environmental field, evidence synthesis methods continue to be poorly applied in practice, resulting in the publication of syntheses that are highly susceptible to bias. Recognizing the constraints that researchers can sometimes feel when attempting to plan, conduct and publish rigorous and comprehensive evidence syntheses, we aim here to identify major pitfalls in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews, making use of recent examples from across the field. Adopting a ‘critical friend’ role in supporting would-be systematic reviews and avoiding individual responses to police use of the ‘systematic review’ label, we go on to identify methodological solutions to mitigate these pitfalls. We then highlight existing support available to avoid these issues and call on the entire community, including systematic review specialists, to work towards better evidence syntheses for better evidence and better decisions.

审查文献的传统方法可能容易产生偏见并导致错误的决定。当审查涉及与政策和实践相关的问题时，这一点尤其令人担忧。系统评价已被引入作为一种更严格的方法来综合跨研究的证据；他们依靠一套以证据为基础的方法，旨在最大限度地提高严谨性和最大限度地减少对偏见的敏感性。尽管系统评价在环境领域越来越受欢迎，但证据综合方法在实践中的应用仍然很差，导致发表的综合评价极易产生偏差。认识到研究人员在试图计划、进行和发表严格和全面的证据综合时有时会感到限制，我们的目标是利用该领域最近的例子，找出系统审查的进行和报告中的主要缺陷。在支持可能的系统审查和避免对警察使用“系统审查”标签的个人回应中采用“关键朋友”角色，我们继续确定方法论解决方案以减轻这些陷阱。然后，我们强调现有的支持可用于避免这些问题，并呼吁整个社区，包括系统评价专家，努力实现更好的证据综合，以获得更好的证据和更好的决策。我们继续确定方法论解决方案以减轻这些陷阱。然后，我们强调现有的支持可用于避免这些问题，并呼吁整个社区，包括系统评价专家，努力实现更好的证据综合，以获得更好的证据和更好的决策。我们继续确定方法论解决方案以减轻这些陷阱。然后，我们强调现有的支持可用于避免这些问题，并呼吁整个社区，包括系统评价专家，努力实现更好的证据综合，以获得更好的证据和更好的决策。