This problem is addressed in PRISMA 2020 (Q21), ROBIS (P2 D2) and MECIR (C39). Relevant studies may be retrieved by searches but then not selected for inclusion into the review either at screening or full text retrieval stage. The study selection process should ideally be performed in duplicate and against pre-specified eligibility criteria for titles and abstract to ensure that relevant studies are not erroneously excluded.
Articles that support this problem:
Extent and quality of systematic review evidence related to minimum intervention in dentistry: essential oils, powered toothbrushes, triclosan, xylitol
2011 : International dental journal
Incomplete Systematic Meta-analysis of Pharmacological Therapies for Opioid-Induced Constipation
2018 : Journal of pain and symptom management
Discrepancies in meta-analyses answering the same clinical question were hard to explain: a meta-epidemiological study
2020 : 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
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
Do systematic reviews still exclude studies with "no relevant outcome data"?
2017 : Bmj
Errors in the conduct of systematic reviews of pharmacological interventions for irritable bowel syndrome
2010 : American journal of gastroenterology
Incorrect inclusion of individual studies and methodological flaws in systematic review and meta-analysis
2014 : British journal of general practice
Mounting evidence that librarians are essential for comprehensive literature searches for meta-analyses and Cochrane reports
2004 : Journal of the medical library association
Single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13 percent of relevant studies: a crowd-based, randomized controlled trial
2020 : Journal of clinical epidemiology
Errors in systematic reviews: an example of computed tomography screening for lung cancer
2014 : European journal of cancer prevention
Accounting for single center effects in systematic reviews cannot be overlooked
2017 : Critical care
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
Methodological quality and redundancy of systematic reviews that compare endarterectomy versus stenting for carotid stenosis
2019 : Bmj evidence-based medicine
The Cochrane HPV vaccine review was incomplete and ignored important evidence of bias
2018 : Bmj evidence-based medicine
Potential Problems With Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
2017 : Journal of pain
Systematic review searches must be systematic, comprehensive, and transparent: a critique of Perman et al
2019 : Bmc public health
Can Cochrane Reviews in controversial areas be biased? A sensitivity analysis based on the protocol of a Systematic Cochrane Review on low-level laser therapy in osteoarthritis
2005 : Photomedicine and laser therapy
Some problems with Cochrane reviews of diet and chronic disease
2005 : European journal of clinical nutrition
A Cochrane review on brain [18F]FDG PET in dementia: limitations and future perspectives
2015 : European journal of nuclear medicine & molecular imaging
The currency, completeness and quality of systematic reviews of acute management of moderate to severe traumatic brain injury: A comprehensive evidence map
2018 : Plos one [electronic resource]
HPV vaccine requirements, opt-outs and providers' support: Key studies missing from a recent systematic review
2020 : Human vaccines and immunotherapeutics
Letter to the Editor concerning "The role of non-rigid cervical collar in pain relief and functional restoration after whiplash injury: a systematic review and a pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials" by Ricciardi L, et al. (Eur Spine J; [2019] 28:1821-1828)
2020 : European spine journal
Appraising the exercise oncology literature: a reminder of the rigour needed in systematic reviews
2019 : British journal of sports medicine
Is quality control of Cochrane reviews in controversial areas sufficient?
2006 : Journal of alternative & complementary medicine
Assessment of Duplicate Evidence in Systematic Reviews of Imaging Findings of Children with COVID-19
2021 : Jama network open
Contradictory Findings of Two Recent Meta-Analyses: What Are We Supposed to Believe About Anesthetic Technique in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery?
2021 : Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia
Photodynamic therapy for root canal disinfection in endodontics: an umbrella review
2022 : Lasers in medical science
Comment on "A systematic review of trials investigating the efficacy of exercise training for functional capacity and quality of life in chronic kidney disease patients"
2022 : International urology and nephrology
Systematic Review on Electronic Health Interventions for Patients With Breast Cancer: Revisiting the Methodology
2023 : Journal of clinical oncology
Efficacy and safety of acupuncture for polycystic ovary syndrome: An overview of systematic reviews
2023 : The journal of integrative medicine