Limited quality assessment or no risk of bias

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