This problem is addressed in PRISMA 2009, PRISMA 2020, AMSTAR 1, AMSTAR 2, ROBIS and MECIR. Statistical significance should be considered together with the quality of evidence and other factors such as certainty and precision. Interpreting results of studies in terms of study quality is key to remaining objective in systematic reviews.
Articles that support this problem:
Divine intervention? A Cochrane review on intercessory prayer gone beyond science and reason
2009 : Journal of negative results in biomedicine
High quality of evidence is uncommon in Cochrane systematic reviews in Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Emergency Medicine
2017 : European journal of anaesthesiology
Use of methodological tools for assessing the quality of studies in periodontology and implant dentistry: a systematic review
2014 : Journal of clinical periodontology
Clinical Vignettes Inadequate to Assess Impact of Implicit Bias: Concerning Limitations of a Systematic Review
2017 : Academic emergency medicine
Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study
2005 : Bmj
Examining the quality of evidence to support the effectiveness of interventions: an analysis of systematic reviews
2016 : Bmj open
Assessing imprecision in Cochrane systematic reviews: a comparison of GRADE and Trial Sequential Analysis
2018 : Systematic reviews
A systematic survey showed important limitations in the methods for assessing drug safety among systematic reviews
2020 : Journal of clinical epidemiology
The collaboration and reporting quality of social welfare systematic reviews in the Campbell Collaboration online library
2019 : Health & quality of life outcomes
Quality of Cochrane reviews: Quality of Cochrane reviews is better than that of non-Cochrane reviews
2002 : Bmj: british medical journal
Systematic reviews in dentistry: Current status, epidemiological and reporting characteristics
2019 : Journal of dentistry
Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study
2016 : Plos medicine
Methodological quality, completeness of reporting and use of systematic reviews as evidence in clinical practice guidelines for paediatric overweight and obesity
2017 : Clinical obesity
Systematic reviews on interventions for COVID-19 have rarely graded the certainty of the evidence
2021 : Sao paulo medical journal
Mind-body exercises for osteoarthritis: an overview of systematic reviews including 32 meta-analyses
2023 : Disability & rehabilitation
Caution should be exercised when assessing ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 in systematic reviews
2022 : Reviews in medical virology
Systematic Review on Electronic Health Interventions for Patients With Breast Cancer: Revisiting the Methodology
2023 : Journal of clinical oncology
Methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 living systematic review: a cross-sectional study
2023 : Bmc medical research methodology