The RCPsych Article of the Month for December is ‘Enhancing the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses‘ and the blog is written by authors Rebecca Strawbridge, Deepika Sharma, Steve Kisely, Ioana A. Cristea, Allan H. Young and Kenneth R. Kaufman and the article is published in BJPsych Open.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are impactful in shaping avenues across clinical practice, policy and research; minimising bias in doing these is therefore critical. Concerns are regularly raised, however, about systematic reviews falling short on quality, transparency, and reproducibility.

What’s Going Wrong?

• Patchy adherence to guidelines: Standards like PRISMA exist, but compliance is inconsistent.
• Bias risks: Selection bias, publication bias, and poor reporting undermine validity.
• Lack of transparency: Vague search strategies and unclear inclusion criteria make replication tough.
• Resource pressures: Tight budgets and timelines lead to shortcuts.
• These flaws matter because low-quality reviews can misinform policy and clinical decisions.

Our Solution: The Meta-Checklist

In our recent paper (Strawbridge et al., 2025), we propose a practical tool which we hope can support raising the bar for our systematic reviews:

• Plan and Register: Pre-register protocols (e.g., PROSPERO) to boost transparency.
• Know when to ask: Seek expertise throughout.
• Search Smart: Plan carefully and report the details.
• Minimise Bias: Ideally dual reviewing processes at each stage.  
• Stay Realistic: Balance rigor with feasibility.

Why It Matters

Better reviews mean better evidence – and that means better care. Journals, funders, and institutions should incentivise these practices to ensure reviews truly serve their purpose.

The second article is a special article addressing means to maximize quality of systematic reviews submitted to BJPsych Open and other journals.  Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are often considered the highest level in evidence hierarchies and therefore are often drawn upon when considering changes in policy. Despite journals implementing measures aiming to enhance the quality of systematic reviews they publish, the authors raise concerns about the quality of existing and ongoing systematic reviews, particularly relating to transparency and bias minimization.  Building on the current guidelines, standards and tools, the authors suggest a ‘meta checklist’ which aims to maximize methodologically sound, unbiased and reproducible reviews of the best scientific quality while considering feasibility throughout the process [BJPsych Open 2025;11(6):e266].   With a greater appreciation of gold standard quality for reviews, our stakeholders will be better informed about the reviews they read in BJPsych Open and the wider literature.

Kenneth R. Kaufman
Editor-in Chief, BJPsych Open