Which limitation is commonly associated with systematic reviews?

Which limitation is commonly associated with systematic reviews?

• A. Infinite data availability
• B. No bias considerations
• C. Shortened study durations
• D. Reporting bias

Answer: (D)

Reporting bias is a common limitation of systematic reviews. Systematic reviews aim to summarize all relevant evidence using explicit methods, but the literature available for review can be skewed because not all studies get published or fully report their findings. Positive or significant results tend to be published more often, while negative or inconclusive studies may remain hidden. Within individual studies, authors may selectively report favorable outcomes or analyses, further distorting what the evidence shows. This means the pooled results in a review or meta-analysis can overestimate benefits or underestimate harms, even when the review methods are solid. Reviewers try to counter this by searching beyond published articles, contacting authors for data, assessing the risk of bias, and conducting sensitivity analyses to see how results change when potential missing data are accounted for. The other options don’t fit because data availability is not infinite in practice, bias considerations are a standard part of systematic reviews, and shortened study durations describe a study characteristic rather than a limitation of the review process.

Reporting bias is a common limitation of systematic reviews. Systematic reviews aim to summarize all relevant evidence using explicit methods, but the literature available for review can be skewed because not all studies get published or fully report their findings. Positive or significant results tend to be published more often, while negative or inconclusive studies may remain hidden. Within individual studies, authors may selectively report favorable outcomes or analyses, further distorting what the evidence shows. This means the pooled results in a review or meta-analysis can overestimate benefits or underestimate harms, even when the review methods are solid. Reviewers try to counter this by searching beyond published articles, contacting authors for data, assessing the risk of bias, and conducting sensitivity analyses to see how results change when potential missing data are accounted for. The other options don’t fit because data availability is not infinite in practice, bias considerations are a standard part of systematic reviews, and shortened study durations describe a study characteristic rather than a limitation of the review process.