“A little learning is a dangerous thing”: A call for better understanding of the term ‘systematic review’

Haddaway, Neal R.; Land, Magnus; Macura, Biljana

doi:10.1016/j.envint.2016.12.020

Cited by 44 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Secondly, systematic mapping has emerged as a very popular method for evidence synthesis, as a first step in the evidence synthesis pathway and as a means of highlighting knowledge clusters and gaps [14,15]. PRISMA cannot be easily adapted for these methods that rely more heavily on the earlier stages of the review process (searching and screening) and the outputs of which are databases of evidence rather than full syntheses of study findings.…”

Section: Prisma and Environmental Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Prisma and Environmental Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Endorsed reviews are vetted by methodology experts and can therefore be trusted as more rigorous and thus more reliable. Nevertheless, substandard reviews remain more numerous (see [15,16]) with flaws in planning and design (e.g. protocol either missing or lacks crucial details), conduct (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, it is important to note that our citing of those examples here does not imply that these publications met the systematic review criteria in all cases. Indeed, an increasing number of publications claim to be systematic reviews, but upon a closer examination, fail to meet basic criteria such as the production of a review protocol, the documentation of the literature search, or the appraisal of studies (Haddaway et al 2017). …”

Section: Preamblementioning

confidence: 99%

A primer on systematic reviews in toxicology

Hoffmann

Vries²,

Stephens

et al. 2017

Arch Toxicol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic reviews, pioneered in the clinical field, provide a transparent, methodologically rigorous and reproducible means of summarizing the available evidence on a precisely framed research question. Having matured to a well-established approach in many research fields, systematic reviews are receiving increasing attention as a potential tool for answering toxicological questions. In the larger framework of evidence-based toxicology, the advantages and obstacles of, as well as the approaches for, adapting and adopting systematic reviews to toxicology are still being explored. To provide the toxicology community with a starting point for conducting or understanding systematic reviews, we herein summarized available guidance documents from various fields of application. We have elaborated on the systematic review process by breaking it down into ten steps, starting with planning the project, framing the question, and writing and publishing the protocol, and concluding with interpretation and reporting. In addition, we have identified the specific methodological challenges of toxicological questions and have summarized how these can be addressed. Ultimately, this primer is intended to stimulate scientific discussions of the identified issues to fuel the development of toxicology-specific methodology and to encourage the application of systematic review methodology to toxicological issues.

show abstract

“…Here, relevant training should provide an understanding of the benefits of systematic methods compared to informal narrative literature reviews, and the importance of the central tenets of comprehensiveness, transparency, repeatability and objectivity [4][5][6]. There is a general appreciation for the 'added value' associated with reviews that label themselves as 'systematic' , but there is also a misunderstanding over what is required to make a review reliable [17,25]. This kind of training would be suitable for potential commissioners of syntheses along with endusers (policy stakeholders and practitioners) wishing to integrate review findings into decision-making processes.…”

Section: Training For Stakeholders Education and Outreachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Much at stake: the importance of training and capacity building for stakeholder engagement in evidence synthesis

Eales¹,

Haddaway²,

Webb³

2017

Environ Evid

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic reviews and maps are complex methods for synthesising evidence that involve specialist and resourceintensive activities. Systematic reviewers face challenges when attempting to clearly and precisely communicate their methods to end-users and other stakeholder groups. We propose that these challenges are likely to be a key causal factor in the generally low uptake of systematic reviews and maps by policy and practitioners in environmental science and management. We argue that training and capacity building are inherently important components of systematic reviews and maps for all stakeholders; the reviewers themselves, the end-users of specific reviews, and the broader research and decision-making community. Training can help to build capacity for undertaking reviews and maps, and can help to explain complex methods to stakeholders. Training is important for those wishing to undertake stakeholder engagement activities as part of a review. It allows researchers and decision-makers to critique systematic reviews and maps based on their methods. Finally, training may be necessary to allow reviewers to prepare visualisations and communication media for presenting the findings of systematic reviews and maps. We conclude that a broad approach, by viewing every opportunity of stakeholder engagement as a potential for training and capacity building is appropriate both within a specific review and across reviews as a community of practice in evidence synthesis. We call for systematic reviewers to improve networks across disciplines in relation to training, sharing experiences and course content, and ensuring a consistent approach to capacity building in the conduct and use of evidence syntheses.

show abstract

“A little learning is a dangerous thing”: A call for better understanding of the term ‘systematic review’

Cited by 44 publications

References 8 publications

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

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

A primer on systematic reviews in toxicology

Much at stake: the importance of training and capacity building for stakeholder engagement in evidence synthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About