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.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

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

References

  1. 1.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Guidelines and Standards for Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management Version 5 (CEE, 2018); https://go.nature.com/2rjhJan

  4. 4.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

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

  9. 9.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    PRISMA Endorsers (PRISMA, 2015); https://go.nature.com/2rcPNEO

  17. 17.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neal Robert Haddaway.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

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). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0180-3

Download citation

Further reading

Search

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