In short Read article

Umbrella reviews of drugs


The number of published systematic reviews of randomised drug trials has risen rapidly in recent years. This has led to the development of ‘overviews’ of systematic reviews, known as ‘umbrella reviews’. These umbrella reviews are similar to systematic reviews of randomised drug trials, but in this case the basic unit is not the randomised trial but the systematic review. The scope of an umbrella review is usually larger than that of a systematic review, and this can facilitate the formation of judgements about drugs in health care. Guidelines for composing umbrella reviews have been established, which enable readers to assess their quality. Pitfalls include contradictory systematic reviews and overlaps between the studies included in the various systematic reviews. 

  • Umbrella reviews can save time and can have a larger scope that systematic reviews.
  • An inevitable risk and potential disadvantage of umbrella reviews is that they put readers at an even greater distance from the primary studies.
  • It is important to always critically assess the quality of umbrella reviews. 
  • Pitfalls of umbrella reviews include overlaps of included studies and contradictions between the constituent systematic reviews.

  1. Dekkers OM. Meta-analyse mogelijkheden en beperkingen. Gebu. 2012;46(8):85-92.
  2. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010 Sep 21;7(9):e1000326. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326. 
  3. Ioannidis JP. The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016 Sep;94(3):485-514. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12210. 
  4. Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Becker LA, Pieper D, Hartling L. Chapter V: Overviews of Reviews. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.0 (updated March 2020). Cochrane, 2020. Available from: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook. Accessed 24-5-2020
  5. Smith V, Devane D, Begley CM, Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011 Feb 3;11(1):15. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-15. 
  6. Hunt H, Pollock A, Campbell P, Estcourt L, Brunton G. An introduction to overviews of reviews: planning a relevant research question and objective for an overview. Syst Rev. 2018 Mar 1;7(1):39. doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0695-8. 
  7. Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey CM, Holly C, Khalil H, Tungpunkom P. Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015 Sep;13(3):132-40. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055. 
  8. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.0 (updated July 2019). Cochrane, 2019. Available from: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook. Accessed 24-05-2020.
  9. Lunny C, Brennan SE, Reid J, McDonald S, McKenzie JE. Overviews of reviews incompletely report methods for handling overlapping, discordant, and problematic data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Feb;118:69-85. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.09.025. 
  10. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, et al. Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study. PLoS Med. 2016 May 24;13(5):e1002028. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028. 
  11. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Browman GP. A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews. CMAJ. 1997 May 15;156(10):1411-6. 
  12. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2700. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2700. 
  13. Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Hartling L. Evaluation of AMSTAR to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017 Mar 23;17(1):48. doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0325-5. 
  14. Whiting P, Savovi? J, Higgins JP, Caldwell DM, Reeves BC, et al.; ROBIS group. ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jan;69:225-34. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005. 
  15. Cates CJ, Oleszczuk M, Stovold E, Wieland LS. Safety of regular formoterol or salmeterol in children with asthma: an overview of Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Oct 17;10(10):CD010005. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010005.pub2. 
  16. Barbateskovic M, Krauss SR, Collet MO, Larsen LK, Jakobsen JC, et al.  Pharmacological interventions for prevention and management of delirium in intensive care patients: a systematic overview of reviews and meta-analyses. BMJ Open. 2019 Feb 19;9(2):e024562. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024562. 
  17. Li L, Tian J, Tian H, Sun R, Liu Y, Yang K. Quality and transparency of overviews of systematic reviews. J Evid Based Med. 2012 Aug;5(3):166-73. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-5391.2012.01185.x. 
  18. Stolk LML. Netwerk meta-analyse van geneesmiddelen. Gebu. 2020;54(8):89-95.
  19. Griebeler ML, Morey-Vargas OL, Brito JP, Tsapas A, Wang Z, et al. Pharmacologic interventions for painful diabetic neuropathy: An umbrella systematic review and comparative effectiveness network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2014 Nov 4;161(9):639-49. doi: 10.7326/M14-0511. Erratum in: Ann Intern Med. 2015 Apr 21;162(8):600. Erratum in: Ann Intern Med. 2015 May 19;162(10):739. 
  20. Gan J, Ma D, Xiong T. Efficacy and safety of levetiracetam in children with epilepsy: protocol for an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open. 2019 Jul 10;9(7):e029811. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029811. 
  21. Xu T, Lei H, Zhang Y, Huang S, Wang Z, et al. Interventions for cancer-related pain: Protocol of an umbrella systematic review and network meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Nov;98(45):e17844. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000017844.

Authors

  • Leo M.L. Stolk, dr