A recent letter to the editor published in Revista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas draws attention to an important omission in a systematic review: the lack of a full search strategy.
González Aroca J . Literature searches report in systematic reviews. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2025;117:618-619.
doi: 10.17235/reed.2024.10848/2024. PMID: 39446109.
The letter praises the authors for their overall work, but underscores that without the exact search strings, databases, dates, and filters used in the review, the study cannot be properly reproduced or updated in the future.
The systematic review in question is:
Tian Z et al. Immunogenicity and risk factors for poor humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in patients with autoimmune hepatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2024;116:671-679. doi: 10.17235/reed.2024.10053/2023. PMID: 38235657.
The letter emphasizes – By failing to publish the detailed search strategy, the review limits transparency and hampers reproducibility — undermining one of the very reasons for conducting a systematic review.
In systematic reviews, the search strategy is the backbone of rigour. Unless the strategy is fully documented, peers cannot validate whether the review captured all relevant studies, nor can they reproduce or update the review reliably. For authors, editors and readers committed to high-quality evidence synthesis — visibility of the search process is not optional. It should be standard practice.
Conclusion & call to action: If you undertake or publish a systematic review — always include the full search strategy (databases, detailed queries, dates, filters). Doing so ensures transparency, reproducibility, and protects the credibility of your review.
#SystematicReviews #ResearchTransparency #EvidenceBasedMedicine #MetaAnalysis