This problem is addressed in PRISMA 2009, PRISMA 2020, ROBIS and MECIR. Quality assessment may sometimes be undertaken, but not well (use of numerical or invalidated scales; the resulting risk of bias is not incorporated into meta-analysis or interpretation of the review)
Articles that support this problem:
Journal impact factor is associated with PRISMA endorsement, but not with the methodological quality of low back pain systematic reviews: a methodological review
2020 : European spine journal
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
Quality of Systematic Reviews of the Foods with Function Claims in Japan: Comparative Before- and After-Evaluation of Verification Reports by the Consumer Affairs Agency
2019 : Nutrients
PEDro's bias: summary quality scores should not be used in meta-analysis
2013 : Journal of clinical epidemiology
A systematic review finds that diagnostic reviews fail to incorporate quality despite available tools
2005 : Journal of clinical epidemiology
Use of methodological tools for assessing the quality of studies in periodontology and implant dentistry: a systematic review
2014 : Journal of clinical periodontology
Methodological quality of meta-analyses on treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a cross-sectional study using the AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool
2015 : Npj primary care respiratory medicine
Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality
2017 : Systematic reviews
Systematic reviews synthesized evidence without consistent quality assessment of primary studies examining epidemiology of chronic diseases
2012 : Journal of clinical epidemiology
Reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of otorhinolaryngologic articles based on the PRISMA statement
2015 : Plos one
Risk of bias assessment of sequence generation: a study of 100 systematic reviews of trials
2019 : Systematic reviews
A quality assessment of systematic reviews on telerehabilitation: what does the evidence tell us?
2015 : Annali dell'istituto superiore di sanita
Inadequate critical appraisal of studies in systematic reviews of time to diagnosis
2016 : Journal of clinical epidemiology
Assessing harmful effects in systematic reviews
2004 : Bmc medical research methodology
The need for caution in interpreting high quality systematic reviews
2001 : Bmj
Identifying the ‘incredible’! Part 2: Spot the difference-a rigorous risk of bias assessment can alter the main findings of a systematic review
2019 : British journal of sports medicine
Incorporation of assessments of risk of bias of primary studies in systematic reviews of randomised trials: a cross-sectional study
2013 : Bmj open
Low Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Published in the Urological Literature (2016-2018)
2020 : Urology
Reliability of the Evidence Addressing Treatment of Corneal Diseases: A Summary of Systematic Reviews
2019 : Jama ophthalmology
Reporting randomized controlled trial quality and search date in systematic reviews and meta-analyses
2017 : Pain
Quality of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of surgical randomized clinical trials
2020 : Bjs open
Use and reporting of risk of bias tools in 825 systematic reviews of acupuncture: a cross-sectional study
2021 : Acupuncture in medicine
Quality assessment practice in systematic reviews of mediation studies: results from an overview of systematic reviews
2022 : Journal of clinical epidemiology
Improving prediction model systematic review methodology: Letter to the Editor
2021 : Translational sports medicine
Exercise across the Lung Cancer Care Continuum: An Overview of Systematic Reviews
2023 : Journal of clinical medicine
Harms reporting by systematic reviews for functional endoscopic sinus surgery: a cross-sectional analysis
2023 : European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology
Striving for Happily Ever After: Supportive Interventions for Youth Leaving Residential Placement. A Systematic Review of Reviews
2022 : Child & adolescent mental health
Comment on "Ticks infected with Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus (CCHFV): A decision approach systematic review and meta-analysis regarding their role as vectors"
2023 : Travel medicine and infectious disease
Changing patterns in reporting and sharing of review data in systematic reviews with meta-analysis of the effects of interventions: cross sectional meta-research study
2022 : Bmj
Trends in systematic reviews of kidney transplantation: A 10-year analysis of the evidence base
2023 : Transplantation reviews
A Cross-Sectional Study Based on Forty Systematic Reviews of Foods with Function Claims (FFC) in Japan: Quality Assessment Using AMSTAR 2
2023 : Nutrients