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.

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

Guidance to Best Tools and Practices for Systematic Reviews

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the health sciences: Best practice methods for research syntheses

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

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

Ten simple rules for conducting umbrella reviews

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

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

Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application

Best Practices for Meta-Reviews in Physical Activity and Health Research: Insights From the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Advisory Committee Scientific Report

Systematic reviews of the literature: an introduction to current methods

Selecting and Appraising Studies for a Systematic Review

What do meta-analysts need in primary studies? Guidelines and the SEMI checklist for facilitating cumulative knowledge

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

Identifying meta-research with researchers as study subjects: Protocol for a scoping review

How to carry out a literature search for a systematic review: a practical guide

How to Write a Systematic Review

A Hands-On Tutorial for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis With Example Data Set and Codes

Systematic reviews of clinical practice guidelines: a methodological guide

"How-to": scoping review?

Guidance on review type selection for health technology assessments: key factors and considerations for deciding when to conduct a de novo systematic review, an update of a systematic review, or an overview of systematic reviews