Missing the forest-plot for the trees – published online 14/01/2023

Deirdre K. Tobias

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are respectable research tools when used correctly. In this issue, Deirdre Tobias (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-022-05862-8) describes, however, that the quality of systematic reviews today is highly variable, despite standard operating procedures and best practices, warranting serious concerns about over-reliance on their findings without paying careful attention to potential bias. She discusses how this has undoubtedly led to some arguments against their use and value to the scientific community (see the counter-debate by Enzo Bonora in this issue). However, she goes on to highlight that dismissing this critical and growing evidence base altogether would be a disservice to rigorous scientific progress. She concludes that researchers should instead be encouraged to improve their proficiency in reading, conducting and interpreting systematic review research so that these reviews better serve their intended role as efficient synthesisers of accumulating evidence and gatekeepers of redundant original research.

All News