Ten simple rules for conducting umbrella reviews.

Paolo Fusar-Poli, Joaquim Radua
Author Information
  1. Paolo Fusar-Poli: Early Psychosis: Interventions and Clinical-detection (EPIC) Lab, Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
  2. Joaquim Radua: Early Psychosis: Interventions and Clinical-detection (EPIC) Lab, Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Evidence syntheses such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide a rigorous and transparent knowledge base for translating clinical research into decisions, and thus they represent the basic unit of knowledge in medicine. Umbrella reviews are reviews of previously published systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Therefore, they represent one of the highest levels of evidence synthesis currently available, and are becoming increasingly influential in biomedical literature. However, practical guidance on how to conduct umbrella reviews is relatively limited.
METHODS: We present a critical educational review of published umbrella reviews, focusing on the essential practical steps required to produce robust umbrella reviews in the medical field.
RESULTS: The current manuscript discusses 10 key points to consider for conducting robust umbrella reviews. The points are: ensure that the umbrella review is really needed, prespecify the protocol, clearly define the variables of interest, estimate a common effect size, report the heterogeneity and potential biases, perform a stratification of the evidence, conduct sensitivity analyses, report transparent results, use appropriate software and acknowledge the limitations. We illustrate these points through recent examples from umbrella reviews and suggest specific practical recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS: The current manuscript provides a practical guidance for conducting umbrella reviews in medical areas. Researchers, clinicians and policy makers might use the key points illustrated here to inform the planning, conduction and reporting of umbrella reviews in medicine.

References

  1. Res Synth Methods. 2016 Mar;7(1):55-79 [PMID: 26332144]
  2. Trends Cogn Sci. 2014 May;18(5):235-41 [PMID: 24656991]
  3. BMJ. 2013 Jul 19;347:f4501 [PMID: 23873947]
  4. Stat Med. 2017 Nov 30;36(27):4266-4280 [PMID: 28815652]
  5. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Mar 12;13(2):74-83 [PMID: 26447035]
  6. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016 Sep;14(9):32-39 [PMID: 27755314]
  7. Alzheimers Dement. 2017 Apr;13(4):406-418 [PMID: 27599208]
  8. JAMA Psychiatry. 2016 Mar;73(3):211-20 [PMID: 26764163]
  9. Syst Rev. 2016 Apr 08;5:57 [PMID: 27059307]
  10. JAMA Psychiatry. 2016 Feb;73(2):113-20 [PMID: 26719911]
  11. JAMA Psychiatry. 2015 Dec;72(12):1243-51 [PMID: 26558708]
  12. World Psychiatry. 2018 Feb;17(1):49-66 [PMID: 29352556]
  13. BMJ Open. 2017 Apr 4;7(4):e015421 [PMID: 28377396]
  14. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;62(10):1006-12 [PMID: 19631508]
  15. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016 Sep;14(9):93-102 [PMID: 27755321]
  16. Stat Med. 2000 Nov 30;19(22):3127-31 [PMID: 11113947]
  17. Schizophr Bull. 2017 Mar 1;43(2):375-388 [PMID: 27535081]
  18. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016 Oct;14(10):29-47 [PMID: 27846114]
  19. Syst Rev. 2017 Apr 4;6(1):69 [PMID: 28376926]
  20. Milbank Q. 2016 Sep;94(3):485-514 [PMID: 27620683]
  21. Lancet Neurol. 2015 Mar;14(3):263-73 [PMID: 25662901]
  22. Science. 2011 Dec 2;334(6060):1230-2 [PMID: 22144616]
  23. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007 Feb 15;7:10 [PMID: 17302989]
  24. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2016 Feb;23:1-9 [PMID: 26739246]
  25. JAMA. 2000 Apr 19;283(15):2008-12 [PMID: 10789670]
  26. PLoS Clin Trials. 2006 Nov 17;1(7):e36 [PMID: 17111044]
  27. PLoS Biol. 2017 Mar 2;15(3):e2000797 [PMID: 28253258]
  28. CMAJ. 2009 Oct 13;181(8):488-93 [PMID: 19654195]
  29. PLoS One. 2007 Dec 26;2(12):e1350 [PMID: 18159233]

Grants

  1. MC_PC_16048/Medical Research Council

MeSH Term

Guidelines as Topic
Humans
Meta-Analysis as Topic
Statistics as Topic
Systematic Reviews as Topic

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0reviewsumbrellapracticalpointsconductingsystematicmeta-analysestransparentknowledgerepresentmedicinepublishedevidenceguidanceconductreviewrobustmedicalcurrentmanuscriptkeyreportuseOBJECTIVE:EvidencesynthesesproviderigorousbasetranslatingclinicalresearchdecisionsthusbasicunitUmbrellapreviouslyThereforeonehighestlevelssynthesiscurrentlyavailablebecomingincreasinglyinfluentialbiomedicalliteratureHoweverrelativelylimitedMETHODS:presentcriticaleducationalfocusingessentialstepsrequiredproducefieldRESULTS:discusses10considerare:ensurereallyneededprespecifyprotocolclearlydefinevariablesinterestestimatecommoneffectsizeheterogeneitypotentialbiasesperformstratificationsensitivityanalysesresultsappropriatesoftwareacknowledgelimitationsillustraterecentexamplessuggestspecificrecommendationsCONCLUSIONS:providesareasResearchersclinicianspolicymakersmightillustratedinformplanningconductionreportingTensimplerules

Similar Articles

Cited By