In 2016, following an evaluation of publication trends over the last few decades, Ioannidis1 declared that “the production of systematic reviews and meta-analyses has reached epidemic proportions.” In particular, he estimated that the annual number of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses increased approximately 2700% from 1991 to 2014.1 Systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which are fundamental tools of evidence-based medicine, aim to accumulate, synthesize, and evaluate evidence across individual studies, with the goal of resolving uncertainties, reducing biases, and informing practice. However, the production of reviews has far outpaced the 150% increase in annual publications across all PubMed–indexed article types between 1991 and 2014.1 These recent trends have led to questions about the purpose, quality, and credibility of most reviews as well as calls to abandon systematic reviews and meta-analyses altogether.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Wallach JD. Meta-analysis Metastasis. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(11):1594–1595. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.2999
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: