Article type
Abstract
"
Background: Umbrella reviews (URs) provide a ready means for decision makers in healthcare to gain a clear understanding of a broad topic area. There has been an explosion of umbrella reviews (URs) in the medical literature over the past decade.
Aim: Primary objective was to explore a. the incidence/prevalence of URs published over the past 20 years, b. the quality of reporting and adherence to PRIOR guidelines as well as internal validity of the URs; and c. calculate the amount of overlap between URs. Secondary objective was to discuss if there is a need to develop a new tool for assessing the risk of bias in URs.
Method: A scoping searches in PubMed, Cochrane Central and Epistemonikos in January 2024 (without time restrictions) were conducted. A custom-made data extraction form was used to collect the data, which were synthesised quantitatively.
Results: 1,516 URs were found. Those URs were published between 2007 and 2024. The number of URs is rising exponentially with less than 10 between 2007-2014 to 486 in 2023. Those URs were frequently overlapping i.e., acupuncture (n=17 unique URs), coffee (n=20), diet/nutrition (n=163), drugs/medications (n=161), exercise/physical activity (n=149), nuts/seeds (n=9), vitamin C (n=9), vitamin D (n=35), vitamin E (n=9). Those URs pertained to effectiveness (n=651), prognosis/prediction/risk factors (n=235), diagnosis (n=121), barriers/facilitators (n=47), or biomarkers (n=21). The internal validity and quality of reporting of URs was often poor. The amount of overlap especially in URs of vitamins/supplements is significant, potentially contributing to the research waste. The work is still ongoing; and we will have more findings by September 2024 to present at the Global Evidence Summit.
Conclusions: Critical appraisal of the evaluated studies is the cornerstone of evidence-based medicine. However, despite the growing popularity of URs, currently there is no guidance on how to evaluate risk of bias/methodological quality of UR; and a new approach is needed. The target audience of this new tool would primarily be authors of overviews of URs, and overview authors wanting to avoid risk of bias in their overviews."
Background: Umbrella reviews (URs) provide a ready means for decision makers in healthcare to gain a clear understanding of a broad topic area. There has been an explosion of umbrella reviews (URs) in the medical literature over the past decade.
Aim: Primary objective was to explore a. the incidence/prevalence of URs published over the past 20 years, b. the quality of reporting and adherence to PRIOR guidelines as well as internal validity of the URs; and c. calculate the amount of overlap between URs. Secondary objective was to discuss if there is a need to develop a new tool for assessing the risk of bias in URs.
Method: A scoping searches in PubMed, Cochrane Central and Epistemonikos in January 2024 (without time restrictions) were conducted. A custom-made data extraction form was used to collect the data, which were synthesised quantitatively.
Results: 1,516 URs were found. Those URs were published between 2007 and 2024. The number of URs is rising exponentially with less than 10 between 2007-2014 to 486 in 2023. Those URs were frequently overlapping i.e., acupuncture (n=17 unique URs), coffee (n=20), diet/nutrition (n=163), drugs/medications (n=161), exercise/physical activity (n=149), nuts/seeds (n=9), vitamin C (n=9), vitamin D (n=35), vitamin E (n=9). Those URs pertained to effectiveness (n=651), prognosis/prediction/risk factors (n=235), diagnosis (n=121), barriers/facilitators (n=47), or biomarkers (n=21). The internal validity and quality of reporting of URs was often poor. The amount of overlap especially in URs of vitamins/supplements is significant, potentially contributing to the research waste. The work is still ongoing; and we will have more findings by September 2024 to present at the Global Evidence Summit.
Conclusions: Critical appraisal of the evaluated studies is the cornerstone of evidence-based medicine. However, despite the growing popularity of URs, currently there is no guidance on how to evaluate risk of bias/methodological quality of UR; and a new approach is needed. The target audience of this new tool would primarily be authors of overviews of URs, and overview authors wanting to avoid risk of bias in their overviews."