In general, one should NOT ignore the review papers. One possibility to proceed is roughly as follows: for the MAIN results of other people that your paper builds on you should cite BOTH the original papers and the reviews (the latter usually contain further details etc.), while for things you use only marginally you perhaps could get away with citing only the appropriate reviews. However, citation patterns and customs are very much field-dependent, so perhaps the colleagues from your specialty could provide more specific advice for your specific situation.

In general, one should NOT ignore the review papers. One possibility to proceed is roughly as follows: for the MAIN results of other people that your paper builds on you should cite BOTH the original papers and the reviews (the latter usually contain further details etc.), while for things you use only marginally you perhaps could get away with citing only the appropriate reviews. However, citation patterns and customs are very much field-dependent, so perhaps the colleagues from your specialty could provide more specific advice for your specific situation.

A good review paper shows new insights into a number of research questions. In this case, it should not be left aside. If the insights gained in the review contribute to the core of your research - cite it in your report. If not, leave it.

Literature reviews are an important, if often much maligned, contribution to the literature - especially from a 'conceptual' and 'discursive' basis. Some journals will tend to steer clear of literature reviews in favour of primary empirical manuscripts - but that fashion tends to come and go. For me, it is the nature of the literature review i.e. it's rigour trail (especially a detailed account of the literature search processes) that are important. There are different types of review as well that add more structure and, therefore, potentially more credibility i.e. integrative reviews, meta-analysis (now emerging within qualitative research) - and additional 'narrative' reviews i.e. concept analysis, discourse analysis etc.

What is your way to cite reviews and meta-analysis papers? is the question

What i usually do -

I mention like this

The subject has been reviewed in 2000 ( please see references therein) Then cite papers after 2000

Interesting comments. It is, I think well known that review papers are more likely to be cited than original research articles. There may be some confusion of terms, however, depending on the discipline. In science and medicine, meta analysis usually means a re-analysis of data to arrive at some greater conclusion on the basis of aggregating data form the most reliable studies. To move the topic on from an iteration of similar studies.

In Social Science a meta analysis usually means a review of theory and conceptual models to consolidate in one article previous research as a basis for further research. In other words someone has done the hard work of providing a helicopter view, to help future researchers start from a better place. This is possibly why they are cited more often.

In the humanities a review of the literature or a literature review is usually used as a tool to present an argument for a particular point of view. In that sense it is an individual argument presented through a particular organisation of the literature on any topic.

The advice I gave students, is to cite the source you have read, or in the case of an experienced researcher to cite the source you judge to be the most significant to support your argument. It is sometimes hard to get across the point that reviews have a particular function in the literature. To advance a topic. A tool if you like to save researchers having to re-review and therefore cite previous research that has already been integrated into the literature.

i had written many reviews - You summarize critically ( without bias) all information

Finally criticize and suggest directions

It is helpful to you and to all

It is necessary to quote both - especially in the case that reviews bring something new, and it is a good practice, to respect the original idea. We should admire and support the interplay of "old" and "new" idea development.