Normalizing other people's data on number of significant figures
You are free to choose how many digits to keep, and whether to do it consistently - although you are advised to use as many as it makes sense. 

Reporting 1.314 ± 0.287 clearly does not add any useful information to 1.31 ± 0.29 as there is no meaning in the last digit. As a referee I would have requested the original publication to ignore the last digit.

Keeping Doe, J as 1.3 ± 0.1 together with Anon, Y as 1.31 ± 0.29 in a review makes perfect sense, as it shows that Anon's data is actually more precise than Doe's.