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