Skip to main content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Dot gov

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

HTTPS

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

  • Environmental Topics
  • Laws & Regulations
  • Report a Violation
  • About EPA
Risk Assessment
Contact Us

Sampling the literature: what’s gained and lost by taking a non-exhaustive approach to searching the evidence?

On this page:

  • Overview
Systematic assessments of evidence from the literature can drive research planning and inform environmental management. However, current approaches to systematic review are resource intensive, creating a barrier to wider uptake. One aspect where evidence assessment could be made more efficient is through using samples of the literature to test hypotheses, rather than a full census. We are using the data from an in-progress CEE systematic review to assess the ability of samples of the literature to reach the same conclusions as the full census. The review is characterizing the relationship between total nitrogen or total phosphorus concentrations and chlorophyll a in streams and rivers. Part of our approach uses Monte Carlo analyses to simulate large numbers of analyses on different randomly chosen samples from the full dataset. We assessed the proportion of effect size estimates that capture the true mean effect size to within several different percentages, and how the statistical power to detect true differences varies with sample size. We also estimated the approximate time savings by removing citations that were time-intensive to extract. Precise estimates of the true effect size require relatively large samples of the full body of literature, but statistical power to detect a true non-zero effect size is high even for quite small sample sizes. The suitability of sub-sampling therefore depends upon the nature of the question being asked by the review. Most scientific endeavours make inferences using samples because of an inability to undertake censuses of entire populations of data. Evidence synthesis methods that can reliably employ samples of the literature would be a major advancement. Together with other concurrent initiatives designed to improve efficiency, this has the potential to drive uptake of evidence synthesis methods in environmental science and management and thus drive the effectiveness revolution that we know is possible.

Impact/Purpose

Evaluating the potential loss of information or confidence in the review conclusions by removing time-intensive steps may inform future evidence assessments that do not have enough time or resources to complete a full systematic review.

Citation

Webb, A., S. Lee, K. Schofield, M. Bennett, AND C. Ridley. Sampling the literature: what’s gained and lost by taking a non-exhaustive approach to searching the evidence? Environmental Evidence Summit, NA, Virtual Meeting, March 09, 2021.
  • Risk Assessment Home
  • About Risk Assessment
  • Risk Recent Additions
  • Human Health Risk Assessment
  • Ecological Risk Assessment
  • Risk Advanced Search
    • Risk Publications
  • Risk Assessment Guidance
  • Risk Tools and Databases
  • Superfund Risk Assessment
  • Where you live
Contact Us to ask a question, provide feedback, or report a problem.
Last updated on March 31, 2021
United States Environmental Protection Agency

Discover.

  • Accessibility Statement
  • Budget & Performance
  • Contracting
  • EPA www Web Snapshots
  • Grants
  • No FEAR Act Data
  • Privacy
  • Privacy and Security Notice

Connect.

  • Data
  • Inspector General
  • Jobs
  • Newsroom
  • Open Government
  • Regulations.gov
  • Subscribe
  • USA.gov
  • White House

Ask.

  • Contact EPA
  • EPA Disclaimers
  • Hotlines
  • FOIA Requests
  • Frequent Questions

Follow.