ReviewMedical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran2025
Methodological and Systematic Errors in Systematic Reviews in Health Domain: A Systematic Review.
Review in Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: According to the pyramid of evidence, systematic reviews hold the highest position among studies used in healthcare systems and policy-making. Avoiding systematic and methodological errors are demanding responsibility for authors. Clearly, erroneous studies can have irreparable consequences on health and treatment decisions. Therefore, this study aims to identify potential errors in systematic reviews within the field of health. Methods: To systematically identify potential errors in systematic reviews, we conducted a comprehensive literature search using keywords such as "Bias," "Error," and "Systematic Reviews" across databases like PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest without any time restrictions. This yielded 2333 articles and 11 books initially.After removing duplicates and unrelated sources based on predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria tailored for this study context (e.g., relevance to error identification in systematic reviews), we closely examined 88 relevant sources. Results: Upon analyzing the full texts of these sources with strict adherence to our criteria, we identified 77 distinct types of errors that could occur either within or between studies. These findings highlight the complexity of maintaining accuracy in systematic review methodologies. Conclusion: Given the critical role systemic reviews play in informing clinical decisions and health policies, ensuring their quality is paramount. Accurate methodology ensures validity; biased studies risk leading to suboptimal patient care outcomes. By pinpointing error sources-such as selection bias or information bias-and implementing strategies to mitigate them through rigorous methodologies like robust search protocols or transparent reporting standards (e.g., PRISMA guidelines), researchers can enhance review quality significantly.
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.