Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 42364666

What's the meta now? More updates on the problems with systematic reviews.

Lesley Uttley·Yuliang Weng·Louise Falzon
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are intended to provide trustworthy evidence synthesis, yet previous iterations of this living review have identified numerous recurring problems in their conduct and reporting. This article presents the third version and second update of the living systematic review examining issues raised across the academic literature. METHODS: Using consistent eligibility criteria and methods from earlier versions, literature searches were updated to May 2025. Eligible meta-research and editorial articles describing problems with systematic reviews were analyzed to identify emerging themes. Additionally, four basic indicators of methodological quality of the included meta-research were presented across review versions. RESULTS: The update included 209 additional articles. Critically low methodological quality and absence of protocols remained among the most frequently reported issues in systematic reviews across disciplines and journals but notably in evidence underpinning clinical practice guidelines. Spin in abstracts and conflicts of interest continued to be common. Apparent improvements in reporting quality were inconsistent, with modest gains in some full-text reporting but persistent deficiencies in abstracts. Authorship diversity of systematic reviews improved in gender representation but remained geographically concentrated in high-income countries, and primary research included in reviews similarly lacked global representativeness. The issue of misalignment between systematic review evidence bases and global burden of disease bring the total number of problems with systematic reviews to 69. Emerging use of automation and artificial intelligence was variably reported. Descriptive comparison of meta-research articles over the three versions of this living review suggests a greater proportion meeting basic quality indicators in more recent updates. CONCLUSION: Across successive updates, problems with systematic reviews remain widespread and consistent rather than isolated. Incremental reporting improvements coexist with persistent concerns about transparency, bias, and representativeness. Future efforts should prioritize evaluating interventions and aligning research incentives to support genuinely trustworthy evidence synthesis.

Explore related subjects

HumansSystematic Reviews as TopicReview Literature as TopicResearch DesignMeta-Analysis as TopicAuthorshipEvidence-Based MedicineConflicts of interestGlobal research representationMeta-researchResearch integritySystematic reviewTrustworthy evidenceJournal ArticleSystematic Review

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Lesley Uttley, Yuliang Weng, Louise Falzon. 2026-06-27. What's the meta now? More updates on the problems with systematic reviews.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2026.112393

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Journal Article; Systematic Review resourceEvidence-Based Medicine subjectHumans subjectJournal Article subjectSystematic reviews study

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Artificial intelligence in genitourinary oncology: publication trends and systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct an analysis of publication trends and a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to characterize the current state of artificial intelligence (AI) use in genitourinary (GU) oncology, as AI has emerged as a transformative tool in healthcare with potential applications in diagnostics, treatment planning, and prognostication. METHODS: We searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE; Ovid), and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Ultimate for studies related to AI and GU oncology, excluding non-English papers, non-human studies, review articles, and articles using AI solely for manuscript writing. Publication trends were analysed from 2013 to 2023 and categorized by study design and cancer type. RCTs were evaluated through systematic review using Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation Ltd, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) for screening and data extraction. Two reviewers independently assessed all studies, with risk of bias (RoB) evaluated using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. RESULTS: Of 2409 articles identified, 1220 met inclusion criteria. These included 962 retrospective articles, 175 prospective studies, 79 studies with combined retrospective/prospective methods, and four RCTs. Studies most commonly addressed prostate (n = 923), renal (n = 274), and urothelial (n = 194) cancers. Publications grew from 14 in 2013 to 362 in 2023, with substantial acceleration in 2019. Four RCTs were identified - one in urothelial cancer and three in prostate cancer. Two RCTs evaluated AI-based diagnostics, demonstrating improved performance over conventional methods; the remaining two RCTs evaluated AI in prognostication and treatment planning, showing improved gains in imaging interpretation and operational efficiency. RoB varied across studies, primarily related to randomisation and deviations from intended interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Artificial intelligence research in GU oncology has grown, although high-level evidence from RCTs remains limited. Existing trials underscore AI's promise in diagnostics, prognostication, and treatment planning, and the rapidly evolving nature of this field warrants continued prospective investigation.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

The application of artificial intelligence in healthcare practice: A mapping review of systematic reviews.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming healthcare practice, with growing evidence supporting its use in diagnosis, prognosis, treatment planning, and operational decision-making. The proliferation of systematic reviews in recent years underscores the need for an updated synthesis of the literature to inform research, policy, and practice. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, and CINAHL for systematic reviews and meta-analyses published between 2019 and February 2026. Eligible reviews focused on AI applications in healthcare practice, were peer-reviewed, and written in English. A total of 368 reviews met the inclusion criteria. Publication volume increased steadily, peaking in 2025. AI research was concentrated in high-density domains, such as radiology, oncology, and critical care. Across reviews, diagnostic imaging, electronic health record (EHR) data, and biomarkers/laboratory results accounted for 68% of training data sources, though newer data types, such as wearable device and sensor data, emerged from 2022 onward. Diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment comprised over 80% of AI applications, with novel uses emerging in recent years, such as AI-assisted clinical documentation (e.g., ambient documentation tools) and patient education. Ethical concerns were reported in 78.5% of reviews, with privacy, model accuracy, data and algorithmic bias, and explainability as recurrent themes. The proportion of reviews reporting ethical concerns increased from 2021 to 2025. AI applications in healthcare are expanding in scope, diversifying in data sources, and evolving toward novel clinical and operational uses. The human-centered AI or augmented intelligence paradigm, integrating computational precision with clinical expertise, holds significant promise but will require parallel advances in governance, regulatory frameworks, and ethical oversight to ensure safe adoption.

Artificial Intelligence↗
PubMed2026

Measuring Coping Strategies in Daily Life: A Systematic Review of Experience Sampling Methodology and Daily Diary Studies.

Advances in daily diary methods and experience sampling method (ESM) have improved the study of coping strategies in daily life and their role in shaping health and well-being. In this review, we examine study designs, measurement approaches, and analytical practices used to investigate coping in natural contexts. We performed a systematic review of studies published before 5 December 2025 that used daily diary or ESM to measure coping strategies over multiple days or moments. Studies were examined with regard to sampling schemes, assessment frequency and duration, measurement of coping strategies, incorporation of stressor appraisals, and analytic techniques used to model coping processes. Fifty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Results indicated that 80% employed end-of-day diary designs, generally lasting 1-3 weeks, whereas higher-frequency ESM protocols were less common and ranged 2-14 days. Coping strategies were often assessed using abbreviated or single-item measures, frequently adapted from established questionnaires. Many studies incorporated appraisals such as perceived stressor intensity or controllability, enabling tests of coping flexibility. Multilevel modelling was the dominant analytic approach, allowing researchers to distinguish within-person dynamics from between-person differences. However, analyses were predominantly concurrent, and temporally ordered models remained comparatively rare. Overall, the literature demonstrates substantial progress in capturing coping in everyday contexts, yet heterogeneity in measurement and limited use of temporal modelling constrain cumulative knowledge about the temporal links between coping and psychological and physiological health outcomes. Future research would benefit from greater alignment between theoretical assumptions, assessment strategies, and analytic methods.

Humans↗