Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

The role of reporting standards in producing robust literature reviews

Literature reviews can help to inform decision-making, yet they may be subject to fatal bias if not conducted rigorously as ‘systematic reviews’. Reporting standards help authors to provide sufficient methodological detail to allow verification and replication, clarifying when key steps, such as critical appraisal, have been omitted.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type



Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Increasing interest in systematic reviews over recent years.


  1. Bornmann, L. & Mutz, R. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66, 2215–2222 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Grant, M. J. & Booth, A. Health Inf. Libr. J. 26, 91–108 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Guidelines and Standards for Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management Version 5 (CEE, 2018);

  4. Gurevitch, J., Koricheva, J., Nakagawa, S. & Stewart, G. Nature 555, 175–182 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Dixon-Woods, M. et al. Qual. Res. 6, 27–44 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Haddaway, N. R. & Verhoeven, J. T. Ecol. Evol. 5, 4451–4454 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Pullin, A. S. & Stewart, G. B. Conserv. Biol. 20, 1647–1656 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Higgins, J. & Green, S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of interventions Version 5.1.0 (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011).

  9. James, K. L., Randall, N. P. & Haddaway, N. R. Environ. Evid. 5, 7 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Pullin, A. S. Environ. Evid. 3, 18 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Stead, L. F., Lancaster, T. & Silagy, C. A. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 1, 10 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Haddaway, N. R., Land, M. & Macura, B. Environ. Int. 99, 356–360 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Woodcock, P., O’Leary, B. C., Kaiser, M. J. & Pullin, A. S. Fish Fisher. 18, 668–681 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G. & Group, P. PLoS Med. 6, e1000097 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Page, M. J. & Moher, D. Syst. Rev. 6, 263 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. PRISMA Endorsers (PRISMA, 2015);

  17. Haddaway, N. R., Macura, B., Whaley, P. & Pullin, A. S. Environ. Evid. 7, 7 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Haddaway, N. R. Conserv. Biol. 29, 1242–1245 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Thomas, J., O’Mara-Eves, A., Harden, A. & Newman, M. in An Introduction to Systematic Reviews (eds Gough, D. et al.) 181–210 (Sage, London, 2017).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neal Robert Haddaway.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Haddaway, N.R., Macura, B. The role of reporting standards in producing robust literature reviews. Nature Clim Change 8, 444–447 (2018).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing