text_1: Traditional reviews are biased in their interpretations.
text_2: The value of regularly updated systematic reviews in the assessment of effectiveness of healthcare interventions was dramatically illustrated by Antman and colleagues, who showed that review articles failed to mention advances in treatment identified by an updated systematic review.1  It is nearly a quarter of a century since Gene Glass coined the term “meta-analysis” to refer to the quantitative synthesis of the results of primary studies.2 The importance of making explicit efforts to limit bias in the review of literature, however, has been emphasised by social scientists at least since the 1960s.3 In recent years systematic reviews have found an important role in health services research, and the growing interest in evidence based approaches to decision making makes it likely that their use will increase.