Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Area of Science:

• Evidence-based practice
• Scientific methodology
• Health research synthesis

Background:

• Numerous systematic reviews suffer from methodological flaws, bias, and lack of 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 unquestioning 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 science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders.
• To address well-documented deficiencies in systematic reviews and elucidate the rationale for current methodological standards.

Main Methods:

• Distinguishing between tools for developing syntheses and those for evaluating them.
• Differentiating constructs for assessing reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality from those determining evidence certainty.
• Describing exemplar methods and research practices alongside novel pragmatic strategies for improvement.

Main Results:

• A Concise Guide organizing best practice resources for routine implementation by authors and journals.
• Preferred terminology and a scheme for characterizing research evidence types.
• Highlighting best practices and their rationale to encourage further methodological evolution.

Conclusions:

• Superficial application of tools is cautioned against; endorsement does not replace methodological training.
• The guide aims to inspire further evolution of methods and tools to advance the field of evidence synthesis.
• Promoting understanding and application of best practices will enhance the quality and reliability of systematic reviews.