Methodological issues on “challenges and opportunities towards the road of universal health coverage (UHC) in Nepal: a systematic review”

Systematic reviews adhere to the principle that science is cumulative and attempt to identify all empirical evidence in accordance with pre-determined eligibility criteria to answer a specific research question. Therefore, in order to achieve reliable findings, these studies must use an explicit method, as they are increasingly used to guide political decision and the direction of future research. We would like to thank the authors Chhabi Lal Ranabhat et al., for the article “Challenges and opportunities towards the road of universal health coverage (UHC) in Nepal: a systematic review”. Although the authors have stated that they reported th according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, some items have not been well reported. We critically appraised it using the PRISMA guidelines. Results of the study were significantly valuable, but some important points that hamper the utility of the study need to be considered by the audors. The purpose of this letter is to improve the quality of study and present methodological issues about the search strategy, quality assessment of included studies, and data analysis and synthesis.