Perpetuates citation of poor quality primary study data

This problem is addressed in MECIR. Systematic reviews may contain studies which are later retracted due to scientific misconduct, errors or inaccuracies. Inclusion of such poor quality studies in systematic reviews may distort the pooled treatment effect and therefore systematic reviews should consider updating or retracting their review when this occurs.

Articles that support this problem:

False-positive findings in Cochrane meta-analyses with and without application of trial sequential analysis: an empirical review

2016 : Bmj open

Systematic Reviews of Anesthesiologic Interventions Reported as Statistically Significant: Problems with Power, Precision, and Type 1 Error Protection

2015 : Anesthesia & analgesia

Some problems with Cochrane reviews of diet and chronic disease

2005 : European journal of clinical nutrition

(Meta) analyze this: systematic reviews might lose credibility

2012 : Nature medicine

The knowledge system underpinning healthcare is not fit for purpose and must change

2015 : Bmj: british medical journal

The impact of study size on meta-analyses: examination of underpowered studies in Cochrane reviews

2013 : Plos one

The role of authors of systematic reviews in exposing research misconduct

2011 : Bahrain medical bulletin

A case study of a retracted systematic review on interactive health communication applications: impact on media, scientists, and patients

2005 : Journal of medical internet research

What should the Cochrane Collaboration do about research that is, or might be, fraudulent?

2013 : Cochrane database of systematic reviews

How do authors of systematic reviews deal with research malpractice and misconduct in original studies? A cross-sectional analysis of systematic reviews and survey of their authors

2016 : Bmj open

Susceptibility to fraud in systematic reviews: lessons from the Reuben case

2009 : Anesthesiology

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

2009 : Journal of negative results in biomedicine

Predatory publishing dilutes and distorts evidence in systematic reviews

2020 : Journal of clinical epidemiology

Accounting for single center effects in systematic reviews cannot be overlooked

2017 : Critical care

Apparently conclusive meta-analyses may be inconclusive--Trial sequential analysis adjustment of random error risk due to repetitive testing of accumulating data in apparently conclusive neonatal meta-analyses

2009 : International journal of epidemiology

The need to consider the wider agenda in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: breadth, timing, and depth of the evidence

2010 : Bmj

The need for caution in interpreting high quality systematic reviews

2001 : Bmj

A Cochrane review on brain [18F]FDG PET in dementia: limitations and future perspectives

2015 : European journal of nuclear medicine & molecular imaging

Publication bias in meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

2015 : Statistics in medicine

Methodological issues and recommendations for systematic reviews of prognostic studies: an example from cardiovascular disease

2014 : Systematic reviews

Comment on: Treatment outcome with orthodontic aligners and fixed appliances: a systematic review with meta-analyses

2020 : European journal of orthodontics

Retracted randomized controlled trials were cited and not corrected in systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines

2022 : Journal of clinical epidemiology

Herbal medicine for COVID-19: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analysis

2022 : Phytomedicine

Caution should be exercised when assessing ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 in systematic reviews

2022 : Reviews in medical virology