Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Area of Science:

• Medical research methodology
• Evidence-based practice
• Scientific publishing standards

Background:

• Systematic reviews frequently exhibit methodological flaws, bias, and redundancy, diminishing their informativeness.
• Despite advancements in empirical methods and appraisal tools, consistent application by authors and adherence by editors remain suboptimal.
• Clinicians often lack awareness of these issues, leading to uncritical acceptance of evidence syntheses and guidelines.

Purpose of the Study:

• To distill complex information on evidence synthesis methods and tools into an accessible format for authors, peer reviewers, and editors.
• To promote a deeper understanding and appreciation of the rigorous science behind evidence synthesis.
• To address well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses and elucidate the rationale for current standards.

Main Methods:

• Distinguishing between tools for assessing reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality versus those for determining overall evidence certainty.
• Differentiating tools used during synthesis development from those used for final evaluation.
• Describing exemplar methods, research practices, and pragmatic strategies, including preferred terminology and evidence type characterization.

Main Results:

• A Concise Guide organizing best practice resources for routine implementation by authors and journals has been developed.
• The guide clarifies the intended use and limitations of various methods and tools for evidence synthesis.
• Emphasis is placed on informed application and the necessity of in-depth methodological training, cautioning against superficial use.

Conclusions:

• The developed guidance aims to improve the quality and reliability of systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses.
• By highlighting best practices and their rationale, the initiative seeks to foster further evolution in the field of evidence synthesis.
• Promoting a standardized and rigorous approach to evidence synthesis will ultimately enhance the trustworthiness of clinical practice guidelines and inform clinical decision-making.