ROSES
RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses
ROSES publications
Below you will find a list of publications associated with ROSES
Neal R Haddaway, Biljana Macura, Paul Whaley, Andrew S Pullin
Environmental Evidence 2018, 7:7 doi: 10.1186/s13750-018-0121-7
​
Abstract
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.
​
***Please use the current and most up-to-date version of the ROSES forms available here.***
Neal R Haddaway, Biljana Macura
Nature Climate Change 2018, 8:444-447 doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0180-3
​
Abstract
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.
Neal R Haddaway, Biljana Macura, Paul Whaley, Andrew S Pullin
Environmental Evidence 2018, 7:21 doi: 10.1186/s13750-018-0133-3
​
Abstract
Sharp et al. [1] raise a number of concerns about the development and communication of ROSES (RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses), and we welcome the opportunity to explain some of the underlying thinking behind development of the reporting standards for environmental evidence syntheses.