Dataset Information

Meta-analysis shows that environmental DNA outperforms traditional surveys, but warrants better reporting standards.

ABSTRACT: Decades of environmental DNA (eDNA) method application, spanning a wide variety of taxa and habitats, has advanced our understanding of eDNA and underlined its value as a tool for conservation practitioners. The general consensus is that eDNA methods are more accurate and cost-effective than traditional survey methods. However, they are formally approved for just a few species globally (e.g., Bighead Carp, Silver Carp, Great Crested Newt). We conducted a meta-analysis of studies that directly compare eDNA with traditional surveys to evaluate the assertion that eDNA methods are consistently "better."Environmental DNA publications for multiple species or single macro-organism detection were identified using the Web of Science, by searching "eDNA" and "environmental DNA" across papers published between 1970 and 2020. The methods used, focal taxa, habitats surveyed, and quantitative and categorical results were collated and analyzed to determine whether and under what circumstances eDNA outperforms traditional surveys.Results show that eDNA methods are cheaper, more sensitive, and detect more species than traditional methods. This is, however, taxa-dependent, with amphibians having the highest potential for detection by eDNA survey. Perhaps most strikingly, of the 535 papers reviewed just 49 quantified the probability of detection for both eDNA and traditional survey methods and studies were three times more likely to give qualitative statements of performance. Synthesis and applications: The results of this meta-analysis demonstrate that where there is a direct comparison, eDNA surveys of macro-organisms are more accurate and efficient than traditional surveys. This conclusion, however, is based on just a fraction of available eDNA papers as most do not offer this granularity. We recommend that conclusions are substantiated with comparable and quantitative data. Where a direct comparison has not been made, we caution against the use of qualitative statements about relative performance. This consistency and rigor will simplify how the eDNA research community tracks methods-based advances and will also provide greater clarity for conservation practitioners. To this end suggest reporting standards for eDNA studies.

SUBMITTER: Fediajevaite J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8093654 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Guidelines International Network (G-I-N) aims to promote high quality clinical guideline development and implementation. Guideline-based performance measures are a key implementation tool and are widely used internationally for quality improvement, quality assurance, and pay for performance in health care. There is, however, no international consensus on best methods for guideline-based performance measures. In order to address this issue, the G-I-N Performance Measures Working Group aimed to develop a set of consensus-based reporting standards for guideline-based performance measure development and re-evaluation.MethodsMethodology publications on guideline-based performance measures were identified from a systematic literature review and analyzed. Core criteria for the development and evaluation process of guideline-based performance measures were determined and refined into draft standards with an associated rationale and description of the evidence base. In a two-round Delphi-process, the group members appraised and approved the draft standards. After the first round, the group met to discuss comments and revised the drafts accordingly.ResultsTwenty-one methodology publications were reviewed. The group reached strong consensus on nine reporting standards concerning: (1) selection of clinical guidelines, (2) extraction of clinical guideline recommendations, (3) description of the measure development process, (4) measure appraisal, (5) measure specification, (6) description of the intended use of the measure, (7) measure testing/validating, (8) measure review/re-evaluation, and (9) composition of the measure development panel.ConclusionsThese proposed international reporting standards address core components of guideline-based performance measure development and re-evaluation. They are intended to contribute to international reporting harmonization and improvement of methods for performance measures. Further research is required regarding validity, acceptability, and practicality.

Project description:BackgroundeCohort studies offer an efficient approach for data collection. However, eCohort studies are challenged by volunteer bias and low adherence. We designed an eCohort embedded in the Framingham Heart Study (eFHS) to address these challenges and to compare the digital data to traditional data collection.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate adherence of the eFHS app-based surveys deployed at baseline (time of enrollment in the eCohort) and every 3 months up to 1 year, and to compare baseline digital surveys with surveys collected at the research center.MethodsWe defined adherence rates as the proportion of participants who completed at least one survey at a given 3-month period and computed adherence rates for each 3-month period. To evaluate agreement, we compared several baseline measures obtained in the eFHS app survey to those obtained at the in-person research center exam using the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).ResultsAmong the 1948 eFHS participants (mean age 53, SD 9 years; 57% women), we found high adherence to baseline surveys (89%) and a decrease in adherence over time (58% at 3 months, 52% at 6 months, 41% at 9 months, and 40% at 12 months). eFHS participants who returned surveys were more likely to be women (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.58, 95% CI 1.18-2.11) and less likely to be smokers (aOR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32-0.90). Compared to in-person exam data, we observed moderate agreement for baseline app-based surveys of the Physical Activity Index (mean difference 2.27, CCC=0.56), and high agreement for average drinks per week (mean difference 0.54, CCC=0.82) and depressive symptoms scores (mean difference 0.03, CCC=0.77).ConclusionsWe observed that eFHS participants had a high survey return at baseline and each 3-month survey period over the 12 months of follow up. We observed moderate to high agreement between digital and research center measures for several types of surveys, including physical activity, depressive symptoms, and alcohol use. Thus, this digital data collection mechanism is a promising tool to collect data related to cardiovascular disease and its risk factors.

Dataset Information

Meta-analysis shows that environmental DNA outperforms traditional surveys, but warrants better reporting standards.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets