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.

Flexible synthesis to deliver relevant evidence for decision-making

Need for evidence synthesis for quality control of healthcare decision-making

Future of evidence ecosystem series: 2. current opportunities and need for better tools and methods

Synthesizing Evidence from the Earliest Studies to Support Decision-Making: to What Extent Could the Evidence Be Reliable?

A fresh approach to evidence synthesis

Synthesizing evidence on complex interventions: how meta-analytical, qualitative, and mixed-method approaches can contribute

Synthesising results of meta-analyses to inform policy: a comparison of fast-track methods

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

Semi-Automated evidence synthesis in health psychology: current methods and future prospects

Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions

Decision-Making Under Uncertainty in Research Synthesis: Designing for the Garden of Forking Paths

Decision makers need constantly updated evidence synthesis

Tools, techniques, methods, and processes for the detection and mitigation of fraudulent or erroneous data in evidence synthesis: a scoping review protocol

Synthesizing and presenting findings using other methods

Leveraging AI to improve evidence synthesis in conservation

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

Towards more scientific meta-analyses

[Evidence syntheses in public health: An overview]

Guidance to Best Tools and Practices for Systematic Reviews

Innovations in framework synthesis as a systematic review method

A review of the quantitative effectiveness evidence synthesis methods used in public health intervention guidelines