Poor execution of narrative synthesis

This problem is addressed by the SWIM guideline. Unduly highlighting or favouring certain studies above others or presenting unweighted summary statistics are ways in which the narrative synthesis in a systematic review fails to uphold methodological rigour.

Articles that support this problem:

Reporting quality of systematic reviews of interventions aimed at improving vaccination coverage: compliance with PRISMA guidelines

2019 : Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics

Frequent inappropriate use of unweighted summary statistics in systematic reviews of pathogen genotypes or genogroups

2020 : Journal of clinical epidemiology

Reasons or excuses for avoiding meta-analysis in forest plots

2008 : Bmj

The methodological quality of systematic reviews of animal studies in dentistry

2012 : The veterinary journal

Lack of transparency in reporting narrative synthesis of quantitative data: a methodological assessment of systematic reviews

2019 : Journal of clinical epidemiology

Clinical heterogeneity was a common problem in Cochrane reviews of physiotherapy and occupational therapy

2006 : Journal of clinical epidemiology

Quality of Cochrane reviews: Quality of Cochrane reviews is better than that of non-Cochrane reviews

2002 : Bmj: british medical journal

Methodological concerns about a systematic review and meta-analysis of maternal active smoking during pregnancy and low birth weight.

2019 : Nicotine and tobacco research

Characteristics and quality of systematic reviews of acupuncture, herbal medicines, and homeopathy

2003 : Complementary medicine research

Characteristics and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational nutritional epidemiology: a cross-sectional study

2021 : American journal of clinical nutrition

Reliability of the evidence to guide decision-making in foot ulcer prevention in diabetes: an overview of systematic reviews

2022 : Bmc medical research methodology