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.
-
Quantitative evidence synthesis: a practical guide on meta-analysis, meta-regression, and publication bias tests for environmental sciences
Environmental Evidence Open Access 24 April 2023
-
The drivers of anguillid eel movement in lentic water bodies: a systematic map
Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries Open Access 09 January 2023
-
Can public awareness, knowledge and engagement improve climate change adaptation policies?
Discover Sustainability Open Access 23 March 2021
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Bornmann, L. & Mutz, R. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66, 2215–2222 (2015).
Grant, M. J. & Booth, A. Health Inf. Libr. J. 26, 91–108 (2009).
Guidelines and Standards for Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management Version 5 (CEE, 2018); https://go.nature.com/2rjhJan
Gurevitch, J., Koricheva, J., Nakagawa, S. & Stewart, G. Nature 555, 175–182 (2018).
Dixon-Woods, M. et al. Qual. Res. 6, 27–44 (2006).
Haddaway, N. R. & Verhoeven, J. T. Ecol. Evol. 5, 4451–4454 (2015).
Pullin, A. S. & Stewart, G. B. Conserv. Biol. 20, 1647–1656 (2006).
Higgins, J. & Green, S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of interventions Version 5.1.0 (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011).
James, K. L., Randall, N. P. & Haddaway, N. R. Environ. Evid. 5, 7 (2016).
Pullin, A. S. Environ. Evid. 3, 18 (2014).
Stead, L. F., Lancaster, T. & Silagy, C. A. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 1, 10 (2001).
Haddaway, N. R., Land, M. & Macura, B. Environ. Int. 99, 356–360 (2017).
Woodcock, P., O’Leary, B. C., Kaiser, M. J. & Pullin, A. S. Fish Fisher. 18, 668–681 (2017).
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G. & Group, P. PLoS Med. 6, e1000097 (2009).
Page, M. J. & Moher, D. Syst. Rev. 6, 263 (2017).
PRISMA Endorsers (PRISMA, 2015); https://go.nature.com/2rcPNEO
Haddaway, N. R., Macura, B., Whaley, P. & Pullin, A. S. Environ. Evid. 7, 7 (2018).
Haddaway, N. R. Conserv. Biol. 29, 1242–1245 (2015).
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).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Supplementary Information
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0180-3
This article is cited by
-
Quantitative evidence synthesis: a practical guide on meta-analysis, meta-regression, and publication bias tests for environmental sciences
Environmental Evidence (2023)
-
Climate-smart irrigation and responsible innovation in South Asia: A systematic mapping
Ambio (2023)
-
The drivers of anguillid eel movement in lentic water bodies: a systematic map
Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries (2023)
-
A multi-country meta-analysis on the role of behavioural change in reducing energy consumption and CO2 emissions in residential buildings
Nature Energy (2021)
-
Systematic review of the outcomes and trade-offs of ten types of decarbonization policy instruments
Nature Climate Change (2021)
