On each evidence summary page, you'll see an evidence scorecard that describes the overall evidence quality for that solution. This example scorecard indicates high evidence quality for advanced conservation goals and low evidence quality for reduced human infectious disease burdens. "None” indicates that cases were supported only by hypotheses and anecdotes; “low” indicates that there were limited supporting studies with moderate to major evidence gaps, unexplained inconsistency, or limited applicability; “medium” indicates that there were several lines of evidence that were mostly consistent and applicable, where inconsistency could be easily explained; and “high” indicates diverse evidence types, usually including an intervention study, that yielded consistent and highly applicable results and left little to no uncertainty regarding the outcome.

 

For each outcome, the overall evidence quality scores were compiled from a modified Bridge Collaborative evidence rubric that we used to quantify evidence types and diversity, evidence consistency, and evidence applicability, which you can see below. The overall evidence quality was determined by the lowest rating across the three rubric columns (e.g., something with high evidence diversity, medium consistency, and low applicability would have low quality overall).