Medical Journal of The Islamic Republic of Iran (MJIRI)
Iran University of Medical Sciences
Wed, Jul 30, 2025
[Archive]
Volume 39, Issue 1 (1-2025)
Med J Islam Repub Iran 2025 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Vesal Azad R, Riahinia N, Azimi A, Baradaran H. Methodological and Systematic Errors in Systematic Reviews in Health Domain: A Systematic Review. Med J Islam Repub Iran 2025; 39 (1) :509-527
URL: http://mjiri.iums.ac.ir/article-1-9363-en.html
URL: http://mjiri.iums.ac.ir/article-1-9363-en.html
Department of Knowledge and Information Science, Faculty of Psychology and Education, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran , azimia@gmail.com
Abstract: (134 Views)
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.
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.
Type of Study: Systematic Review |
Subject:
Medical Library and Information Sciences
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
