SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS OR PSEUDO-REVIEWS? A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION OF METHODOLOGICAL CRITERIA IN LIGHT OF PRISMA

Abstract

Systematic Reviews (SR) are considered the gold standard in the hierarchy of scientific evidence due to their ability to synthesize data in a rigorous and reproducible manner. However, there has been a growing proliferation of studies that adopt this label without meeting essential methodological requirements, giving rise to so-called “pseudo-systematic reviews.” In this context, this article aimed to critically analyze the criteria of systematicity in light of the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, discussing recurrent methodological shortcomings and the application of the method across different fields of knowledge. Through a theoretical-critical analysis grounded in contemporary literature, the study details the structuring of the research question (using acronyms such as PICO, SPIDER, CIMO, PCC, among others), the importance of prior protocol registration to mitigate biases such as p-hacking, as well as the need for systematic risk-of-bias assessment. Based on the findings, it can be concluded that methodological rigor is not only a technical requirement but also an ethical imperative in scientific production; however, it is observed that a significant proportion of studies classified as SRs do not meet the minimum criteria required to sustain this designation, reflecting an improper and inflated use of the term. This distortion compromises the hierarchy of evidence, undermines the reliability of the synthesized findings, and highlights the urgent need for greater conceptual and methodological rigor from authors, reviewers, and scientific journals.