This problem is addressed in ROBIS and MECIR. When picking out the most noteworthy findings from a systematic review, authors sometimes add 'spin' or headline grabbing statements that can misrepresent the totality of the evidence base. This may lead to interventions being unduly favoured or highlighted in order to avoid having neutral conclusions, which are less likely to get published. Subjective interpretation or influence in a review can also lead to similar review questions producing discordant or opposing conclusions.
Articles that support this problem:
How objective are systematic reviews? Differences between reviews on complementary medicine
2003 : Journal of the royal society of medicine
Multiple overlapping systematic reviews facilitate the origin of disputes: the case of thrombolytic therapy for pulmonary embolism
2018 : Journal of clinical epidemiology
Several reasons explained the variation in the results of 22 meta-analyses addressing the same question
2019 : Journal of clinical epidemiology
Overlapping systematic reviews of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction comparing hamstring autograft with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft: why are they different?
2007 : Jbjs
The art and science of study identification: a comparative analysis of two systematic reviews
2016 : Bmc medical research methodology
Analysis of decisions made in meta-analyses of depression screening and the risk of confirmation bias: a case study
2012 : Bmc medical research methodology
Overinterpretation of Research Findings: Evaluation of "Spin" in Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in High-Impact Factor Journals
2020 : Clinical chemistry
Overinterpretation of research findings: evidence of “spin” in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies
2017 : Clinical chemistry
Eight Out of Every Ten Abstracts of Low Back Pain Systematic Reviews Presented Spin and Inconsistencies With the Full Text: An Analysis of 66 Systematic Reviews
2020 : Journal of orthopaedic & sports physical therapy
A new classification of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses was developed and ranked according to the severity
2016 : Journal of clinical epidemiology
Appraisal of systematic reviews on the management of peri-implant diseases with two methodological tools
2018 : Journal of clinical periodontology
No evidence-based practice by biased information from systematic reviews: the case of etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis
2008 : Clinical & experimental rheumatology
Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998
2001 : Bmj
Some problems with Cochrane reviews of diet and chronic disease
2005 : European journal of clinical nutrition
The quality of systematic reviews about interventions for refractive error can be improved: a review of systematic reviews
2017 : Bmc ophthalmology
Financial Conflicts of Interest and Reporting Bias Regarding the Association between Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Weight Gain: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews
2014 : Plos medicine
Quality and clarity in systematic review abstracts: an empirical study
2016 : Research synthesis methods
Perils of systematic reviews
2005 : Cmaj
Spin the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Regarding the Treatment of Meniere's Disease
2021 : Annals of otology, rhinology and laryngology
Over 30% of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Focused on Rotator Cuff Tear Treatments Contained Spin in the Abstract
2021 : Arthroscopy
Letter to the Editor - Not even the top general medical journals are free of spin: A wake-up call based on an overview of reviews
2021 : Journal of clinical epidemiology
Assessment of spin in abstracts of Endodontic Systematic Reviews with meta-analyses published between 2010 and 2022. Are we in need of more transparent interpretation of findings?
2022 : International endodontic journal