Abstract:» Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.» A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.» Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Cutting-Edge Methodological Guidance for Authors in Conducting the Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

A Primer on Systematic Review and Meta-analysis in Diabetes Research

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in neurosurgery part I: interpreting and critically appraising as a guide for clinical practice

A step by step guide for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis with simulation data

Best Practice Guidelines and Essential Methodological Steps to Conduct Rigorous and Systematic Meta-Reviews

Systematic reviews of clinical practice guidelines: a methodological guide

Step by step guide to do a systematic review and meta-analysis for medical professionals

Innovations in the systematic review of text and opinion

Framework for the synthesis of non-randomised studies and randomised controlled trials: a guidance on conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis for healthcare decision making

How to Conduct and Publish Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses in Dentistry

Methodological Guidance Paper: High-Quality Meta-Analysis in a Systematic Review

Guidance to Best Tools and Practices for Systematic Reviews

Towards a Framework for the Design, Implementation and Reporting of Methodology Scoping Reviews

A Research Protocol for a Systematic Review of Automatic Literature Screening in Medical Evidence Synthesis

Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application

A step-by-step guide to the systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic and prognostic test accuracy evaluations

Methodological challenges in systematic reviews of mHealth interventions: Survey and consensus-based recommendations

Machine learning computational tools to assist the performance of systematic reviews: A mapping review

Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review

Search strategy formulation for systematic reviews: Issues, challenges and opportunities

Barriers and facilitators to uptake of systematic reviews by policy makers and health care managers: a scoping review