This problem is addressed in AMSTAR 2. Appropriate methodological expertise in a systematic review is not sufficient to ensure that a systematic review is clinically useful. Clinical experts, stakeholders and patients are necessary to help a review team produce a systematic review that asks and answers questions that are fundamental to patient health.
Articles that support this problem:
The role of imaging specialists as authors of systematic reviews on diagnostic and interventional imaging and its impact on scientific quality: report from the EuroAIM Evidence-based Radiology Working Group
2014 : Radiology
Content area experts as authors: helpful or harmful for systematic reviews and meta-analyses?
2012 : Bmj
Defining the benefits of stakeholder engagement in systematic reviews
2014 : Unknown
Characteristics of stakeholder involvement in systematic and rapid reviews: a methodological review in the area of health services research
2019 : Bmj open
Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review
2018 : Systematic reviews
Why are Cochrane hepato-biliary reviews undervalued by physicians as an aid for clinical decision-making?
2010 : Digestive and liver disease
A qualitative study into the difficulties experienced by healthcare decision makers when reading a Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy review
2013 : Systematic reviews
The Cochrane 1998 Albumin Review–not all it was cracked up to be
2002 : European journal of anaesthesiology
Striking Errors in the Methodology, Execution, and Conclusions of the Cochrane Library Review of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Low Back Pain by Traeger et al
2023 : Pain medicine