MECIR guidelines facilitate good practice in systematic reviews which may explain why Cochrane reviews have frequently been found to be of higher quality than non-systematic reviews. Some journals may accept systematic reviews for publication which have not adhered to good guidelines for reporting and methodological conduct.
Articles that support this problem:
Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals: a quality paradigm?
2013 : The european journal of orthodontics
A systematic assessment of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in high-impact medical journals related to cancer
2018 : Bmj open
Methodological quality of systematic reviews on influenza vaccination
2014 : Vaccine
Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane reviews were twice as likely to have positive conclusion statements: cross-sectional study
2009 : Journal of clinical epidemiology
Discrepancies in meta-analyses answering the same clinical question were hard to explain: a meta-epidemiological study
2020 : Journal of clinical epidemiology
Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-Cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy
2009 : Journal of clinical epidemiology
Nature and reporting characteristics of UK health technology assessment systematic reviews
2018 : Bmc medical research methodology
Comparison of methodological quality rating of systematic reviews on neuropathic pain using AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR
2018 : Bmc med res methodol
Search strategies in systematic reviews in periodontology and implant dentistry
2013 : Journal of clinical periodontology
Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis on Asthma Treatments. A Cross-Sectional Study
2020 : Annals of the american thoracic society
Overinterpretation of Research Findings: Evaluation of "Spin" in Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in High-Impact Factor Journals
2020 : Clinical chemistry
Reproducible research practices are underused in systematic reviews of biomedical interventions
2018 : Journal of clinical epidemiology
Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in assisted reproductive technologies
2012 : Human reproduction
Reporting, handling and assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant data in systematic reviews: a methodological survey
2015 : Bmj open
Characteristics of stakeholder involvement in systematic and rapid reviews: a methodological review in the area of health services research
2019 : Bmj open
Incorporation of assessments of risk of bias of primary studies in systematic reviews of randomised trials: a cross-sectional study
2013 : Bmj open
Methodological quality of systematic reviews on interventions for osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional study
2020 : Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease
Applicability and generalisability of the results of systematic reviews to public health practice and policy: a systematic review
2010 : Trials [electronic resource]
Appraising the Quality of Systematic Reviews for Age-Related Macular Degeneration Interventions: A Systematic Review
2018 : Jama ophthalmology
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
Reporting of financial conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of drug trials published in high-impact medical journals: comparison of results from 2017 to 2018 and 2009
2020 : Systematic reviews
Comparison of information sources used in Cochrane and nonâCochrane systematic reviews: A case study in the field of anesthesiology and pain
2019 : Research synthesis methods
Use and reporting of risk of bias tools in 825 systematic reviews of acupuncture: a cross-sectional study
2021 : Acupuncture in medicine
Reporting and Handling of Missing Participant Data in Systematic Reviews of Kidney Transplant Studies
2021 : Transplantation
An Analysis of the Evidence Underpinning the American Urologic Association Clinical Practice Guidelines
2022 : Urology
Reporting of methods to prepare, pilot and perform data extraction in systematic reviews: analysis of a sample of 152 Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews
2021 : Bmc medical research methodology
Analysis of Systematic Reviews in Clinical Practice Guidelines for Head and Neck Cancer
2022 : Laryngoscope
Restrictions and their reporting in systematic reviews of effectiveness: an observational study
2022 : Bmc medical research methodology
Assessing the magnitude of changes from protocol to publication-a survey on Cochrane and non-Cochrane Systematic Reviews
2023 : Peerj
Quality of reporting among systematic reviews underpinning the ESC/ACC guidelines on ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death
2022 : Bmj evidence-based medicine
Interventions for treating pain and disability in adults with complex regional pain syndrome- an overview of systematic reviews
2023 : Cochrane database of systematic reviews
The confidence in the results of physiotherapy systematic reviews in the musculoskeletal field is not increasing over time: a meta-epidemiological study using AMSTAR 2 tool
2024 : Journal of clinical epidemiology
Methodological quality of systematic reviews on atopic dermatitis treatments: a cross-sectional study
2024 : Journal of dermatological treatment
Appraisal methods and outcomes of AMSTAR 2 assessments in overviews of systematic reviews of interventions in the cardiovascular field: A methodological study
2024 : Research synthesis methods
The Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Underpinning Clinical Practice Guidelines Focused on the Management of Cutaneous Melanoma: Cross-Sectional Analysis
2023 : Jmir dermatology