This problem is not addressed in any checklist or guideline. Meta-analyses in systematic reviews may often only include very few studies and if these are at high risk of bias or are heterogenous then they may produce misleading or spurious treatment effect estimates.
Articles that support this problem:
Systematic Reviews of Anesthesiologic Interventions Reported as Statistically Significant: Problems with Power, Precision, and Type 1 Error Protection
2015 : Anesthesia & analgesia
Reporting bias in the literature on the associations of health-related behaviors and statins with cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality
2018 : Plos biology
Characteristics of meta-analyses and their component studies in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: a cross-sectional, descriptive analysis
2011 : Bmc medical research methodology
False-positive findings in Cochrane meta-analyses with and without application of trial sequential analysis: an empirical review
2016 : Bmj open
The knowledge system underpinning healthcare is not fit for purpose and must change
2015 : Bmj: british medical journal
Many meta-analyses of rare events in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were underpowered
2021 : Journal of clinical epidemiology