Review question not justified / important

This problem is addressed in PRISMA 2009, PRISMA 2020, ROBIS and MECIR. Ensuring that systematic reviews address meaningful questions to help decision making is key to ensuring their validity. Involving stakeholders in question setting, scoping the initial research question, looking for other similar questions and pre-registering methods are all ways of ensuring that the systematic review answers an important question.

Articles that support this problem:

Decisions about lumping vs. splitting of the scope of systematic reviews of complex interventions are not well justified: a case study in systematic reviews of health care professional reminders

2012 : Journal of clinical epidemiology

Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions for risk factors correlate weakly with global risk factor burden: a cross-sectional study

2018 : Journal of clinical epidemiology

Assessing harmful effects in systematic reviews

2004 : Bmc medical research methodology

Divine intervention? A Cochrane review on intercessory prayer gone beyond science and reason

2009 : Journal of negative results in biomedicine