How to Peer Review a Systematic Review: A Peer-Reviewer's Guide to Reviewing Reviews.

Abstract

Systematic reviews hold significant academic weight, but poor execution can render them misleading and unreliable. To help improve the quality of systematic reviews, the peer review process plays a crucial role. Peer reviewing systematic reviews requires a distinct skill set compared to reviewing primary research studies. Systematic reviews differ in their methodology and reporting standards, necessitating a structured approach to evaluation. This commentary offers guidance on best practice when peer reviewing systematic reviews, with an emphasis on synthesis of quantitative data from clinical trials. In this article, nine key topics are covered, namely correct classification of review type, adherence to systematic methods, pre-registration, methodological and reporting quality, search strategy evaluation, risk of bias assessment, evidence synthesis methods, data and code availability, and use of standardized assessment tools. By helping to ensure best practice is followed for each of these topics, peer reviewers can play a crucial role in upholding the methodological integrity of systematic reviews, ensuring they contribute reliable and meaningful evidence to the scientific literature.