ROSES RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses: pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps

By Neal R Haddaway, Biljana Macura, P. Whaley, Andrew Pullin. Environmental Evidence, 2018

729 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Reliable synthesis of the various rapidly expanding bodies of evidence is vital for the process of evidence-informed decision-making in environmental policy, practice and research. With the rise of evidence-base medicine and increasing numbers of published systematic reviews, criteria for assessing the quality of reporting have been developed. First QUOROM (Lancet 354:1896–1900, 1999) and then PRISMA (Ann Intern Med 151:264, 2009) were developed as reporting guidelines and standards to ensure medical meta-analyses and systematic reviews are reported to a high level of detail. PRISMA is now widely used by a range of journals as a pre-submission checklist. However, due to its development for systematic reviews in healthcare, PRISMA has limited applicability for reviews in conservation and environmental management. We highlight 12 key problems with the application of PRISMA to this field, including an overemphasis on meta-analysis and no consideration for other synthesis methods. We introduce ROSES (RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses), a pro forma and flow diagram designed specifically for systematic reviews and systematic maps in the field of conservation and environmental management. We describe how ROSES solves the problems with PRISMA. We outline the key benefits of our approach to designing ROSES, in particular the level of detail and inclusion of rich guidance statements. We also introduce the extraction of meta-data that describe key aspects of the conduct of the review. Collated together, this summary record can help to facilitate rapid review and appraisal of the conduct of a systematic review or map, potentially speeding up the peer-review process. We present the results of initial road testing of ROSES with systematic review experts, and propose a plan for future development of ROSES.

Subfields: Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis, Sociology and Political Science, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5a729350059e1ca2cbba7f1603110bc5d88e314b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis

In Sociology and Political Science

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology: a PRISMA extension (2021, background): “…more discipline-appropriate reporting checklists are available for our fields (e.g. ‘ROSES RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses’; Haddaway et al., 2018; and the Tools for Transparency in Ecology and Evolution’; Parker et al., 2016a), these have so far focussed on applied…”
Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources (2020, background): “74 Further, it is necessary to bear in mind that databases update frequently — sometimes multiple times a day or even on an hourly basis — thus the underlying dataset changes accordingly.”
PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis (2021, methodology): “Reporting standards, such as PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analyses [Moher et al., 2009]) and ROSES (RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses [Haddaway, Macura, et al., 2018]), aim to ensure that review methods and findings are described in sufficient”
Is the insect apocalypse upon us? How to find out (2020, background): “, 1995) and reporting guidelines like ROSES (Haddaway et al., 2018).”
Quantifying the potential for climate change mitigation of consumption options (2020, methodology): “The review followed the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Guidelines [50] and it conformed to ROSES reporting standards [51].”
A systematic review of the energy and climate impacts of teleworking (2020, methodology): “formulate our search and screening protocols, we followed the guidelines of the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (Haddaway et al. 2018) and used the free online platform CADIMA to perform the screening phase (Kohl et al.”
Framing climate change for effective communication: a systematic map (2020, methodology): “We developed a systematic map (SM) of the climate change framing literature following the methodology proposed by the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) (2018) and the Reporting Standards for Evidence Syntheses (ROSES) (Haddaway et al 2018).”
Recreational angler satisfaction: What drives it? (2021, methodology): “Our search followed the ROSES framework for reporting systematic evidence syntheses in environmental research (Haddaway et al., 2018).”
Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. (2020, methodology): “12 discussed modifications to the PRISMA 2009 flow diagram as suggested by other researchers (40-43), which were identified via the review of documents providing reporting guidance for systematic reviews (24), described in section 2.”
PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews (2021, methodology): “DOI: digital object identifier PRESS: Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses PRISMA-IPD: PRISMA for individual patient data PRISMA-P: PRISMA for systematic review protocols PRISMA-ScR: PRISMA for scoping reviews ROSES: R”