Science AI Journal
Decision Sciences · Research topic

Open research questions in Meta-analysis and systematic reviews

486 gap statements mined from Meta-analysis and systematic reviews papers in our 7.9M-paper local library, which holds 4,272 papers on the topic — drawn mostly from each paper's own stated research gap, future-work, challenge and limitation notes, and its abstract. The ones listed below are a selection still marked open; each names the study that raised it, with a DOI link where the paper has one.

Choosing where to publish on Meta-analysis and systematic reviews? See the ranked Social Science journals.

What the literature leaves open

  • Our study highlights the practical challenges of evaluating this form of reproducibility, including incomplete reporting of statistical methods, vague model specifications, and limited information on key assumptions.

    An Empirical Assessment of Inferential Reproducibility of Linear Regression in Health and Biomedical Research Papers · 2026 · DOI

  • Nevertheless, the present evaluation does not demonstrate causal improvements in review efficiency, inter-reviewer agreement, collaboration, or reproducibility of substantive findings: the evaluated cases were retrospective, and the evidence is limited to reporting level traceability and perceived usefulness.

    X-SLR: A Hexagonal Architecture Framework for Reporting Systematic Literature Reviews · 2026 · DOI

  • The lack of high-quality comparative evidence for many procedures in orthopaedics. The limitations of conventional standalone trials. The need for new methods to generate evidence efficiently and effectively.

    The evolution of evidence generation in orthopaedics · 2026 · DOI

  • For the data from most hospital-deployed DeepSeek models, there was limited evidence from published studies to confirm efficacy and safety.

    Promoting Responsible DeepSeek Deployment in Health Care: Scoping Review Comparing Grey and White Literature · 2025 · DOI

  • There is a lack of guidance on the use of rapid approaches in BPRs. The existing guidance on rapid review methods has not been tailored to the methods used in scoping, mapping, and evidence and gap map reviews. The paper identifies a need for clear rationale and transparent reporting when using rapid approaches in BPRs.

    Rapid reviews methods series: guidance on rapid scoping, mapping and evidence and gap map (‘Big Picture Reviews’) · 2025 · DOI

  • The paper identifies the challenge of rating certainty of evidence when the point estimate is close to the null effect. It notes the challenge of estimating a range in which the minimal important difference (MID) for benefit and an MID for harm might lie. The paper highlights the challenge of applying the proposed solution in practice and the need for further research and development.

    Rating certainty when the target threshold is the null and the point estimate is close to the null · 2025 · DOI

  • The paper identifies a gap in the current GRADE guidance for rating certainty of evidence when the point estimate is close to the null effect. It highlights the need for a new solution to address the challenges of rating certainty of evidence. The paper notes that the current approach can lead to misleading certainty ratings.

    Rating certainty when the target threshold is the null and the point estimate is close to the null · 2025 · DOI

  • One challenge is the need for rapid reviews to be produced quickly, which can compromise the quality of reporting. Another challenge is the lack of standardisation in rapid review methods and reporting. The paper also identifies the challenge of ensuring that rapid reviews are transparent and reproducible, despite the use of abbreviated methods.

    Rapid review method series: interim guidance for the reporting of rapid reviews · 2024 · DOI

  • Few studies have assessed the use of LLMs for data extraction. The existing studies have yielded mixed results. There is a need for a framework to evaluate the performance of LLMs for data extraction.

    From promise to practice: challenges and pitfalls in the evaluation of large language models for data extraction in evidence synthesis · 2024 · DOI

  • One challenge is maintaining rigorous methodology and ensuring the validity of findings within tight deadlines. Another challenge is the potential for biases and limitations introduced by the accelerated review process. The paper also highlights the challenge of balancing the need for timely evidence with the potential risks associated with incomplete evidence.

    Rapid reviews methods series: assessing the appropriateness of conducting a rapid review · 2024 · DOI

  • There is a need for guidance on when to conduct a rapid review instead of a full systematic review. The paper identifies a gap in the existing literature on the appropriateness of rapid reviews in different scenarios. The gap includes the lack of clear criteria for determining when a rapid review is suitable.

    Rapid reviews methods series: assessing the appropriateness of conducting a rapid review · 2024 · DOI

  • Balancing the need for detailed information with journal space limitations.

    CARE-radiology statement explanation and elaboration: reporting guideline for radiological case reports · 2024 · DOI

  • One challenge is the need for transparency in reporting methodology and potential risk for bias due to the use of supportive software. Another challenge is the requirement for human judgement and supervision when using automation software. The paper also mentions the need for review teams to have the necessary time resources for training when using online crowdsourcing platforms.

    Rapid review methods series: Guidance on the use of supportive software · 2024 · DOI

  • The paper identifies the gap in evidence-based medicine as the lack of transparency in reporting results and the presence of analytical variability. It also identifies the need for a framework to assess the robustness of results to alternative plausible analytical choices.

    What is the vibration of effects? · 2024 · DOI

  • Balancing the need for clear and concise communication of research findings with the need for sufficient detail and accuracy in infographics.

    Development of the Reporting Infographics and Visual Abstracts of Comparative studies (RIVA-C) checklist and guide · 2024 · DOI

  • Mean effect size estimates in the meta-analysis did not account for measurement error in the predictor and criterion, potentially leading to attenuated estimates of the true relationships. For example, findings based on unique data obtained during the COVID-19 pandemic may not be generalizable postpandemic.

    Improving manuscript acceptance odds: lessons from 247 rejection letters · 2026 · DOI

  • While identifying these problems is important, proposing recommendations to guard against these issues is equally vital.

    Explosion of formulaic research articles, including inappropriate study designs and false discoveries, based on the NHANES US national health database · 2025 · DOI

  • Conventional standalone trials can be expensive, slow to recruit, and difficult to generalize, - Selection bias, restricted data fields, variable outcome reporting, and difficulties with consent and data-quality remain limitations, - Residual confounding, timing bias, and data-quality limitations…

    The evolution of evidence generation in orthopaedics · 2026 · DOI

  • Development of PRISMA-RR - Incorporation of newer developments in RR methods, such…

    Rapid review method series: interim guidance for the reporting of rapid reviews · 2024 · DOI

  • Further investigation with a larger number of patients is needed to confirm if EESS tends to exhibit a larger cystic component compared with uterine…

    CARE-radiology statement explanation and elaboration: reporting guideline for radiological case reports · 2024 · DOI

  • The current functionality of some tools does not extend to the analysis of phrases, - Manual adjustments will still be necessary, - Studies evaluating the deduplication function of traditional citation management software…

    Rapid review methods series: Guidance on the use of supportive software · 2024 · DOI

  • Explore whether difference in treatment selection can lead to different effect estimates in terms of magnitude and statistical significance - Using the most comprehensive Network Meta Analysis to date to explore the stability of results within a primary…

    What is the vibration of effects? · 2024 · DOI

  • Rapid endorsement and implementation of RIVA-C - Capturing the perspectives of a wide range of end…

    Development of the Reporting Infographics and Visual Abstracts of Comparative studies (RIVA-C) checklist and guide · 2024 · DOI

  • The study only considered treatment selection as a source of vibration of effects, - The study was limited to a specific case study of antidepressants in major depressive disorder, - Performing a large number of NMAs requires a lot of computing time, - The study did not consider other methodological choices that could have been…

    Vibration of effects resulting from treatment selection in mixed-treatment comparisons: a multiverse analysis on network meta-analyses of antidepressants in major depressive disorder · 2024 · DOI

  • Investigating vibration of effects in different contexts, such as networks of different size or in different fields, - Estimating vibration of effects related to treatment selection in smaller networks of RCTs, - Considering complementary methodological choices, such as the exhaustiveness of the evidence base or the risk of bias in the RCTs…

    Vibration of effects resulting from treatment selection in mixed-treatment comparisons: a multiverse analysis on network meta-analyses of antidepressants in major depressive disorder · 2024 · DOI

Most-cited papers in Meta-analysis and systematic reviews

Most recent work

Find a gap in your own Meta-analysis and systematic reviews sub-topic

This page shows what the Meta-analysis and systematic reviews literature already flags as unresolved. To narrow it to your specific question, search the Research Gap Finder: the search is free with a free account and lists the papers closest to your topic first. Unlocking that topic (50 credits, charged once) fills the comparison table from our 7.9M-paper local library and writes the gaps from its rows.

Open the Research Gap Finder →

Related topics in Decision Sciences

Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
1,538 open questions
Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
1,015 open questions
Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
573 open questions
Construction Project Management and Performance
526 open questions
Ethics in Business and Education
422 open questions
Efficiency Analysis Using DEA
394 open questions
Stock Market Forecasting Methods
384 open questions
Multi-Criteria Decision Making
383 open questions
Open questions raised by papers listed on this page include: (1) The lack of high-quality comparative evidence for many procedures in orthopaedics (“The evolution of evidence generation in orthopaedics”, 2026); (2) There is a lack of guidance on the use of rapid approaches in BPRs (“Rapid reviews methods series: guidance on rapid scoping, mapping and evidence…”, 2025); (3) Another challenge is the lack of standardisation in rapid review methods and reporting (“Rapid review method series: interim guidance for the reporting of rapid reviews”, 2024); (4) There is a need for a framework to evaluate the performance of LLMs for data extraction (“From promise to practice: challenges and pitfalls in the evaluation of large…”, 2024); (5) There is a need for guidance on when to conduct a rapid review instead of a full systematic review (“Rapid reviews methods series: assessing the appropriateness of conducting a…”, 2024). 486 gap statements have been mined from Meta-analysis and systematic reviews papers in our 7.9M-paper local library, which holds 4,272 papers on the topic; the gaps come from whichever of those papers state one. They are mostly the research gaps the authors state and the papers' abstracts, plus future-work, limitations and challenges passages. The ones listed below are a selection still marked open; each names the study that raised it, with a DOI link where the paper has one, so you can read the original claim in context.

Tools for your next paper

Gaps & Literature SearchFind open questions in any field — 1,100,000+ open gaps mined from our own library.Pre-CheckIs your paper ready? Acceptance odds for top, mid and open/emerging journals, in seconds.Journal FinderA ranked shortlist of target journals from a 17,500-venue index.Duplicate Publication CheckerCheck for prior publication across 7 sources and our local library.Citation GeneratorFreeA DOI or title → APA, MLA, Vancouver, Chicago, BibTeX, RIS. No signup.Graphical Abstract MakerFreeTurn your findings into a colorblind-safe graphical abstract.

How Pre-Check worksHow AI Review works

Compare the category — Honest roundups of the AI research tools, ours listed alongside the alternatives.

Command palette

Jump anywhere, run any action.