Errors in study inclusion or omission of relevant studies

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