Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Apr;16(Suppl 1):S12-S21.
doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00476.x.

Systematic Review Checklist: A Standardized Technique for Assessing and Reporting Reviews of Life Cycle Assessment Data

Jennifer M Zumsteg  1 , Joyce S Cooper  2 , Michael S Noon  3
Affiliations

Systematic Review Checklist: A Standardized Technique for Assessing and Reporting Reviews of Life Cycle Assessment Data

Jennifer M Zumsteg et al. J Ind Ecol. 2012 Apr.

Abstract

Systematic review, including meta-analysis, is increasingly utilized in life cycle assessment (LCA). There are currently no widely recognized guidelines for designing, conducting, or reporting systematic reviews in LCA. Other disciplines such as medicine, ecology, and software engineering have both recognized the utility of systematic reviews and created standardized protocols for conducting and reporting systematic reviews. Based largely on the 2009 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, which updated the preferred format for reporting of such reviews in biomedical research, we provide an introduction to the topic and a checklist to guide the reporting of future LCA reviews in a standardized format. The standardized technique for assessing and reporting reviews of LCA (STARR-LCA) checklist is a starting point for improving the utility of systematic reviews in LCA.

Keywords: academic publishing; bias; health care; industrial ecology; meta-analysis; reporting standards.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A schematic of systematic reviews and meta-analyses within the wider context of knowledge within the scientific community.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Anex RP, Focht W. Public participation in life cycle assessment and risk assessment: A shared need. Risk Analysis. 2008;22(5):861–877. - PubMed
    1. Arvizu D, Bruckner T, Chum H, Edenhofer O, Estefen S, Faaij A, Fischedick M, et al. Technical summary. In: Edenhofen O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Seyboth K, Matschoss P, Kadner S, Zwickel T, Eickemeier P, Hansen G, Schlömer S, von Stechow C, editors. IPCC special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: 2001.
    1. Baldassarre MT, Boffoli N, Caivano D, Visaggio G. A hands-on approach for teaching systematic review. Computer Science. 2008;5089:415–426.
    1. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: How will we ever keep up? PLoS Medicine. 2010;7(9):e1000326. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bhat V, Prakash R. LCA of renewable energy for electricity generation systems - A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2008;13(5):1067–1073.

LinkOut - more resources