open access
How to write an umbrella review? A step-by-step tutorial with tips and tricks
Affiliations- Department of Anatomy, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland
- Division of Anatomy, Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States
- Department of Neurosurgery, Tulane Centre for Clinical Neurosciences, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, United States
- Department of Neurology, Tulane Centre for Clinical Neurosciences, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, United States
- Department of Anatomy, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Phulwarisharif, Patna, India
- Department of Anatomy, Collegium Medicum, Jan Kochanowski University, Kielce, Poland
- Department of Normal Anatomy, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland
open access
Abstract
The number of meta-analyses (MA) and systematic reviews (SR) on various medical issues has increased during the last two decades. The MA and SR results may differ from one another due to a number of factors such as inaccurate or diverse searches through the databases, discrepancies in the extraction process or in statistical analysis, among others. Some results may even contradict one another, resulting in confusion among readers. Umbrella reviews (UR) have allowed the collection of all available data on a medical issue into one concise study, making it the source of evidence-based medical knowledge to the highest degree. Furthermore, UR can resolve those problems by collecting all data and taking into account both MA and SR, making it the superior tool for physicians. Although the pros of UR are clear and the overall popularity of these types of study has increased tremendously, there is no available step-by-step guide on how to conduct one. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to provide researchers with a detailed tutorial on how to conduct an UR. UR represent the next major step in the advancement of evidence-based medicine, with great practical potential for physicians looking for the most up-to-date data on their topic of interest. We hope that our step-by-step guide may be a useful tool for researchers conducting UR in the future.
Abstract
The number of meta-analyses (MA) and systematic reviews (SR) on various medical issues has increased during the last two decades. The MA and SR results may differ from one another due to a number of factors such as inaccurate or diverse searches through the databases, discrepancies in the extraction process or in statistical analysis, among others. Some results may even contradict one another, resulting in confusion among readers. Umbrella reviews (UR) have allowed the collection of all available data on a medical issue into one concise study, making it the source of evidence-based medical knowledge to the highest degree. Furthermore, UR can resolve those problems by collecting all data and taking into account both MA and SR, making it the superior tool for physicians. Although the pros of UR are clear and the overall popularity of these types of study has increased tremendously, there is no available step-by-step guide on how to conduct one. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to provide researchers with a detailed tutorial on how to conduct an UR. UR represent the next major step in the advancement of evidence-based medicine, with great practical potential for physicians looking for the most up-to-date data on their topic of interest. We hope that our step-by-step guide may be a useful tool for researchers conducting UR in the future.
Keywords
umbrella review, evidence based medicine (EBM), meta-analysis, systematic review
About this articleTitle
How to write an umbrella review? A step-by-step tutorial with tips and tricks
Journal
Issue
Article type
Original article
Pages
1-6
Published online
2022-12-22
Page views
4681
Article views/downloads
2258
DOI
Pubmed
Bibliographic record
Folia Morphol 2023;82(1):1-6.
Keywords
umbrella review
evidence based medicine (EBM)
meta-analysis
systematic review
Authors
M. Bonczar
P. Ostrowski
A. V. D'Antoni
R. S. Tubbs
J. Iwanaga
S. K. Ghosh
I. Klejbor
M. Kuniewicz
J. Walocha
J. Moryś
M. Koziej
References (7)- D'Antoni AV, Tubbs RS, Patti AC, et al. The critical appraisal tool for anatomical meta-analysis: a framework for critically appraising anatomical meta-analyses. Clin Anat. 2022; 35(3): 323–331.
- Henry BM, Tomaszewski KA, Ramakrishnan PK, et al. Development of the anatomical quality assessment (AQUA) tool for the quality assessment of anatomical studies included in meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Clin Anat. 2017; 30(1): 6–13.
- Henry BM, Tomaszewski KA, Walocha JA. Methods of evidence-based anatomy: a guide to conducting systematic reviews and meta-analysis of anatomical studies. Ann Anat. 2016; 205: 16–21.
- Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J. (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Wiley 2019.
- Langendam MW, Akl EA, Dahm P, et al. Assessing and presenting summaries of evidence in Cochrane Reviews. Syst Rev. 2013; 2: 81.
- Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017; 358: j4008.
- Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins JPT, et al. ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 69(9): 225–234.
