In restoration science, evidence reviews play a crucial role in summarizing research findings in practice and policy. However, if unreliable or inappropriate methods are used to review evidence, decisions based on these reviews may not accurately reflect the available evidence base. To assess the current value of restoration reviews, we examined a sample of meta-analyses and narrative syntheses (n = 91) with the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Synthesis Assessment Tool (CEESAT), which uses detailed criteria to assesses the method of policy-relevant evidence synthesis according to elements important for objectivity, transparency, and comprehensiveness. Overall, reviews scored low based on this standard: median score 16 out of 39, modal score 15, and mean 16.6. Meta-analyses scored higher than narrative syntheses (median 17 vs. 5, respectively), although there were some outlier narrative syntheses that had high scores, suggesting that quantitative synthesis does not solely reflect the reliability of a review. In general, criteria spanning the more fundamental review stages (i.e., searching for studies and including studies) received low scores for both synthesis types. Conversely, criteria comprising the later stages of the review (i.e., critical appraisal, data extraction, and data synthesis) were generally well described in meta-analyses; thus, these criteria achieved the highest individual CEESAT scores. We argue that restoration ecology is well positioned to advance so-called evidence-based restoration, but review authors should elucidate their conceptual understanding of evidence syntheses and recognize that conducting reliable reviews demands the same methodological rigor and reporting standards used in primary research. Given the potential of evidence reviews to inform management, policy, and research, it is of vital importance that the overall methodological reliability of restoration reviews be improved.

中文翻译：

---

恢复生态学证据审查方法的可靠性

在修复科学中，证据审查在总结实践和政策中的研究结果方面起着至关重要的作用。然而，如果使用不可靠或不适当的方法来审查证据，基于这些审查的决定可能无法准确反映可用的证据基础。为了评估恢复审查的当前价值，我们使用环境证据综合评估工具 (CEESAT) 审查了一个荟萃分析和叙述性综合样本 (n = 91)，该工具使用详细标准来评估与政策相关的方法。根据对客观性、透明度和全面性很重要的要素进行证据综合。总体而言，根据此标准，评论得分较低：39 分中的中位数得分为 16，模态得分为 15，平均得分为 16.6。荟萃分析的得分高于叙事综合（中位数 17 对 5，分别），尽管有一些离群的叙事综合得分很高，这表明定量综合并不仅仅反映了评论的可靠性。一般来说，跨越更基本审查阶段（即搜索研究和包括研究）的标准在两种综合类型中都获得了低分。相反，元分析通常很好地描述了构成审查后期阶段的标准（即批判性评估、数据提取和数据合成）；因此，这些标准获得了最高的个人 CEESAT 分数。我们认为恢复生态学可以很好地推进所谓的循证恢复，但综述作者应该阐明他们对证据综合的概念理解，并认识到进行可靠的综述需要与初级研究中使用的相同的方法学严谨性和报告标准。鉴于证据审查为管理、政策和研究提供信息的潜力，提高修复审查的整体方法可靠性至关重要。