This problem is addressed in PRISMA 2009, PRISMA 2020 nd MECIR. Systematic reviews are an opportunity to make explicit recommendations for primary research that will progress the evidence base but they are often passive in describing specific objectives for primary research. Neutral or negative conclusions are often inevitable in systematic reviews but calls for "further research" is not enough. Describe the ideal future trial in detail that would progress the evidence base following this systematic review.
Articles that support this problem:
Quality assessment of systematic reviews for surgical treatment of low back pain: an overview
2016 : The spine journal
In pursuit of certainty: can the systematic review process deliver?
2013 : Bmc medical informatics & decision making
Cochrane systematic reviews for the mental health field: is the gold standard tarnished?
2013 : Psychiatric services
The sensitivity of review results to methods used to appraise and incorporate trial quality into data synthesis
2007 : Spine
A critical evaluation of systematic reviews assessing the effect of chronic physical activity on academic achievement, cognition and the brain in children and adolescents: a systematic review
2020 : International journal of behavioral nutrition & physical activity
The quality of systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments
2016 : Quality of life research
Systematic reviews in dentistry: Current status, epidemiological and reporting characteristics
2019 : Journal of dentistry
Herbal medicine for COVID-19: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analysis
2022 : Phytomedicine
Conclusiveness, linguistic characteristics and readability of Cochrane plain language summaries of intervention reviews: a cross-sectional study
2022 : Bmc medical research methodology
Linguistic analysis of plain language summaries and corresponding scientific summaries of Cochrane systematic reviews about oncology interventions
2023 : Cancer medicine