This problem is addressed by the ROBIS guideline. The results of systematic reviews with a high risk of bias should be interpreted with caution.
Articles that support this problem:
Risk of Bias and Quality of Reporting in Colon and Rectal Cancer Systematic Reviews Cited by National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines
2020 : Journal of general internal medicine
Reporting bias in the literature on the associations of health-related behaviors and statins with cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality
2018 : Plos biology
Risk of bias assessment of systematic reviews regarding dental implant placement in smokers: An umbrella systematic review
2018 : Journal of prosthetic dentistry
Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews of interventions aimed at improving vaccination coverage using AMSTAR and ROBIS checklists
2019 : Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics
Appraisal of systematic reviews on the management of peri-implant diseases with two methodological tools
2018 : Journal of clinical periodontology
Methodological quality and risk-of-bias assessments in systematic reviews of treatments for peri-implantitis
2019 : Journal of periodontal research
Reliability of the evidence to guide decision-making in foot ulcer prevention in diabetes: an overview of systematic reviews
2022 : Bmc medical research methodology
Quality of systematic reviews on timing of complementary feeding for early childhood allergy prevention
2023 : Bmc medical research methodology
Acupuncture and Related Therapies for Chronic Urticaria: A Critical Overview of Systematic Reviews
2022 : Evidence-based complementary & alternative medicine: ecam
Replication of systematic reviews: is it to the benefit or detriment of methodological quality?
2023 : Journal of clinical epidemiology