Resective surgery is the treatment of choice for one-third of adult patients with focal, drug-resistant epilepsy. This procedure is associated with substantial clinical and cognitive risks. In clinical practice, there is no validated model for epilepsy surgery outcome prediction (ESOP). Meta-analyses on ESOP studies assessing prognostic factors report discrepancies in terms of study design. Our review aims to systematically investigate methodological and analytical aspects of studies predicting clinical and cognitive outcomes after temporal lobe epilepsy surgery. A systematic review of ESOP studies published between 2000 and 2022 from three databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, and PsycINFO) was completed by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. It yielded 4867 articles. Among them, 21 corresponded to our inclusion criteria and were therefore retained in the final review. The risk of bias was assessed using A Tool to Assess Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies (PROBAST). Data extracted from the 21 studies were analyzed using narrative synthesis and descriptive statistics. Our findings show an increase in the use of multimodal datasets and machine learning analyses in recent ESOP studies, although regression remained the most frequently used approach. We also identified a more frequent use of network notions in recent ESOP studies. Nevertheless, several methodological issues were noted, such as small sample sizes, lack of information on the follow-up period, variability in seizure outcome, and the definition of neuropsychological postoperative change. Of 21 studies, only one provided a clinical tool to anticipate the cognitive outcome after epilepsy surgery. We conclude that methodological issues should be overcome before we move towards more complete models to better predict clinical and cognitive outcomes after epilepsy surgery. Recommendations for future studies to harness the possibilities of multimodal datasets and data fusion, are provided. A stronger bridge between fundamental and clinical research may result in developing accessible clinical tools.