ArticleColombia medica (Cali, Colombia)
How can we address the surge of low-quality systematic reviews and their impact on high journal rejection rates?
Article in Colombia medica (Cali, Colombia). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Designing and conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ophthalmology.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Journals have experienced a significant rise in submissions of systematic reviews and other types of reviews that often fall short of acceptable quality standards. These shortcomings typically stem from insufficient rigor in their methodology, reporting, or critical appraisal. As a result, these submissions are frequently rejected raising concerns about the standards authors are following when preparing such work. This growing trend of low-quality reviews not only places a burden on editorial teams but also poses a risk to the scientific community by potentially disseminating flawed or unreliable conclusions. Ensuring that articles maintain high standards is crucial for preserving the integrity of the scientific literature and facilitating evidence-based decision-making. In an effort to address this problem, this viewpoint editorial aims to offer concepts and recommendations on available tools for future authors to improve the quality of their reviews, as well as to guide readers and potential journal reviewers on how to critically interpret these articles.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.