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

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.

[1]  Neal R. Haddaway,et al.  A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences , 2016, Environmental Evidence.

[2]  Sally Hopewell,et al.  PRISMA for Abstracts: Reporting Systematic Reviews in Journal and Conference Abstracts , 2013, PLoS medicine.

[3]  Tracey J. Woodruff,et al.  The Navigation Guide Systematic Review Methodology: A Rigorous and Transparent Method for Translating Environmental Health Science into Better Health Outcomes , 2014, Environmental health perspectives.

[4]  Neal R Haddaway Response to "Collating science-based evidence to inform public opinion on the environmental effects of marine drilling platforms in the Mediterranean Sea". , 2017, Journal of environmental management.

[5]  Sandy Oliver,et al.  Human well-being impacts of terrestrial protected areas , 2012, Environmental Evidence.

[6]  A. Pullin,et al.  Doing more good than harm: building an evidence-base for conservation and environmental management. , 2009 .

[7]  Andrew S. Pullin,et al.  Applying evidence-based practice in conservation management: Lessons from the first systematic review and dissemination projects , 2005 .

[8]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  University of Southern Denmark Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality , 2017 .

[9]  Beatriz Terezinha Borsoi,et al.  Translations , 1950, Greece and Rome.

[10]  Helen R. Bayliss,et al.  Beyond PRISMA: Systematic reviews to inform marine science and policy , 2015 .

[11]  IT Development SAS v. Free Mobile SAS Directive 20044 200924EC,et al.  “IT Development” , 2020, IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law.

[12]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement , 2009, BMJ.

[13]  David Moher,et al.  PRISMA-Equity 2012 Extension: Reporting Guidelines for Systematic Reviews with a Focus on Health Equity , 2012, PLoS medicine.

[14]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[15]  M. Petticrew,et al.  Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide , 2005 .

[16]  Marlene Ågerstrand,et al.  Implementing systematic review techniques in chemical risk assessment: Challenges, opportunities and recommendations. , 2016, Environment international.

[17]  James E. M. Watson,et al.  Species/' traits influenced their response to recent climate change , 2017 .

[18]  Helen R. Bayliss,et al.  Information retrieval for ecological syntheses , 2015, Research synthesis methods.

[19]  Andrew S. Pullin,et al.  The Policy Role of Systematic Reviews: Past, Present and Future , 2014, Springer Science Reviews.

[20]  C. Martin 2015 , 2015, Les 25 ans de l’OMC: Une rétrospective en photos.

[21]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement , 1999, The Lancet.

[22]  Neal R Haddaway,et al.  Making literature reviews more reliable through application of lessons from systematic reviews , 2015, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[23]  Andrew S. Pullin,et al.  Are review articles a reliable source of evidence to support conservation and environmental management? A comparison with medicine , 2006 .

[24]  Neal R Haddaway,et al.  On the benefits of systematic reviews for wildlife parasitology , 2016, International journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife.

[25]  Nancy Santesso,et al.  GRADE: Assessing the quality of evidence in environmental and occupational health. , 2016, Environment international.

[26]  Barbara Kitchenham,et al.  Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews , 2004 .

[27]  Biljana Macura,et al.  "A little learning is a dangerous thing": A call for better understanding of the term 'systematic review'. , 2017, Environment international.

[28]  Laura N. Vandenberg,et al.  A proposed framework for the systematic review and integrated assessment (SYRINA) of endocrine disrupting chemicals , 2016, Environmental Health.

[29]  Andrew S. Pullin,et al.  Effectiveness in Conservation Practice: Pointers from Medicine and Public Health , 2001 .

[30]  A. Pullin,et al.  Guidelines for Systematic Review in Conservation and Environmental Management , 2006, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[31]  Jacob Stegenga,et al.  Is meta-analysis the platinum standard of evidence? , 2011, Studies in history and philosophy of biological and biomedical sciences.

[32]  P. Shekelle,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement , 2015, Systematic Reviews.

[33]  David B. Lindenmayer,et al.  Can methods applied in medicine be used to summarize and disseminate conservation research? , 2004, Environmental Conservation.

[34]  Alison O'Mara-Eves,et al.  Context and Implications Document for: Ongoing developments in meta-analytic and quantitative synthesis methods: Broadening the types of research questions that can be addressed , 2016 .

[35]  Shannon Robalino,et al.  Systematic searching for environmental evidence using multiple tools and sources , 2017, Environmental Evidence.

[36]  P. Shekelle,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[37]  Helen R. Bayliss,et al.  The reliability of evidence review methodology in environmental science and conservation , 2016 .

[38]  W. Sutherland,et al.  The need for evidence-based conservation. , 2004, Trends in ecology & evolution.