Skip to main content

Table 2 Key differences between ROSES and PRISMA in relation to the problems identified with PRISMA (see Table 1)

From: 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

Difference 1: Tailored to environmental systematic reviews AND systematic maps (solution to Problem 1, 6, 7, 8)
Difference 2: Higher standards of reporting (more details requested) in checklist, summary and flow diagram (solution to Problems 2, 5 and 10)
Difference 3: Higher standards of conduct and clearer when standards not fully met (solution to Problem 3)
Difference 4: Reduces emphasis on quantitative synthesis (e.g. meta-analysis etc.) that is only reliable when used for appropriate data in a sensible way (solution to Problem 4)
Difference 5: Accommodate other types of synthesis (narrative and qualitative synthesis) (solution to Problem 4 and 9)
Difference 6: Consistent and appropriate terminology (e.g. confusion of ‘qualitative synthesis’ and ‘narrative synthesis’ in PRISMA flow chart) (solution to Problem 8 and 9)
Difference 7: Corrects problems with PRISMA focusing on bias rather than internal and external validity) (solution to Problem 6)
Difference 8: Provides baseline methodological guidance and suggestions as well as acting as a reporting standard (solution to Problem 11)
Difference 9: Inclusion of meta-data (solution to Problem 12)