[haldujai]

> The quality of studies in systematic inputs is low and even Cochrane's reviews have been critiqued for missing things.

Criticism is good, expecting perfection is not.

Quality issues are a problem of the underlying research rather than the review process. High quality reviews, like Cochrane, assess risk of bias which can limit the strength of conclusion they make where the underlying studies are poor quality.

> There are newer forms of synthesis like realist reviews, meta-modeling, and model-driven meta-analyses (those are just a few examples).

All of these answer different questions/have different use cases than a SR and are much harder to do while maintaining comparable quality and risk of bias.

What's your gripe with high quality SRs following standards like PRISMA, STARD and QUADAS-2?