Four common issues affecting the quality of quantitative systematic reviews
Reflections from a senior associate editor
Systematic reviews are fundamental to evidence-based decision-making in healthcare and policy, but their quality is paramount. The confidence we can place in their findings depends heavily on how well they are conducted and reported.
Jo Leonardi-Bee, a senior associate editor of JBI Evidence Synthesis, outlines four recurring issues that commonly affect the quality and reliability of quantitative systematic reviews in an editorial titled, Further details are needed! Reflections on the reporting in quantitative systematic reviews.
The first issue the editorial raises is the frequent oversight in specifying the timing of outcome measures. It is important to define clinically meaningful time frames, such as short, medium, or long term, to better manage heterogeneity and ensure transparent data extraction, particularly when studies report outcomes at multiple points.
The second issue concerns the insufficient description of alternative synthesis approaches when meta-analysis is not feasible. The editorial advocates for SWiM (syntheses without meta-analysis) and emphasises the need to explicitly report the standardised metric and the synthesis method used, in order to ensure transparency and reproducibility.
A third concern is the lack of detail on factors to be investigated in exploratory and sensitivity analyses. These analyses are essential for testing the robustness of findings and exploring heterogeneity, yet review protocols often omit this information. The editorial underscores the importance of clearly pre-specifying these factors to enhance methodological clarity.
Finally, the editorial calls for more consistent linking of GRADE ratings to the interpretation of results. It stresses the need to use language that accurately reflects both the certainty of the evidence and the magnitude of the effect when presenting results alongside GRADE ratings.
This editorial offers valuable guidance for enhancing the rigour and transparency of reviews. For authors, peer reviewers, and editors alike, understanding where “further details are needed” is essential to raising the standard of work submitted to and published in journals such as JBI Evidence Synthesis.
The editorial is complemented by a short video presented by the author:
The editorial is available in the JBI Evidence Synthesis:
Leonardi-Bee, Jo PhD
JBI Evidence Synthesis 23(6):p 1038-1040, June 2025. | DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-24-00508