  Systematic literature reviews tentativelydescribe the state of the art in a
given research area. However, the continuous publication of new primary and
secondary studies following the release of a tertiary study can make the
communication of results not integrally representative in regards to the
advances achieved by that time. Consequently, using such a study as a reference
within specific bodies of knowledge may introduce imprecision, both in terms of
its subareas and with respect to new methodologies, languages, and tools. Thus,
a review of tertiary studies (what could be understood as a quaternary study)
could contribute to show the representativeness of the reported findings in
comparison to the state of the art and also to compile a set of perceptions
that could not be previously achieved. In that direction, the main contribution
of this paper is presenting the findings from an analysis of 34 software
engineering tertiary studies published between 2009 and 2021. The results
indicate that over 60% of the studies demonstrate varying degrees of
anachronism due to the publication of primary and secondary studies following
the publication of the tertiary study or even due to a time elapse between its
conduction and its publication.
