Appraisal of Umbrella Reviews on Vaccines

Overview

Journal Commun Med (Lond)

Publisher Nature Portfolio

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2024 Nov 28

PMID 39604580

Authors

Rosa Katia Bellomo

John P A Ioannidis

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Umbrella reviews are systematic reviews of all systematic reviews on a given question and can provide a higher-level view of current available evidence on broad research topics. Given the importance and possible consequences of the insights derived from umbrella reviews, it is fundamental to ensure accurate, comprehensive reporting and methodological rigor in these papers. Here, we present the potential and limitations of these evolving evidence synthesis tools by looking at umbrella reviews published on vaccine research. Vaccines are essential tools in modern medicine for preventing disease and promoting public health. The scientific literature on vaccines grows rapidly as researchers work to improve existing vaccines and develop new ones. More than half a million scientific papers on vaccines have already been published, including several thousands of systematic reviews that aim to appraise and summarize this growing literature. However, as the published systematic reviews are only able to cover a small proportion of the literature it is important to also provide higher-level evidence syntheses. and discuss further improvements that could be made to integrate evidence on vaccines.

References

Dettori J, Norvell D . Discordant Systematic Reviews: Which to Believe?. Global Spine J. 2020; 10(2):237-239. PMC: 7076591. DOI: 10.1177/2192568219899945. View

Ioannidis J . The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016; 94(3):485-514. PMC: 5020151. DOI: 10.1111/1468-0009.12210. View

Guyatt G, Oxman A, Vist G, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P . GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008; 336(7650):924-6. PMC: 2335261. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD. View

Bosch-Capblanch X, Zuske M, Auer C . Research on subgroups is not research on equity attributes: Evidence from an overview of systematic reviews on vaccination. Int J Equity Health. 2017; 16(1):95. PMC: 5463415. DOI: 10.1186/s12939-017-0587-x. View

Nichol B, McCready J, Steen M, Unsworth J, Simonetti V, Tomietto M . Barriers and facilitators of vaccine hesitancy for COVID-19, influenza, and pertussis during pregnancy and in mothers of infants under two years: An umbrella review. PLoS One. 2023; 18(3):e0282525. PMC: 9980804. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282525. View

Rodrigues B, Alves M, Duarte G, Costa J, Pinto F, Caldeira D . The impact of influenza vaccination in patients with cardiovascular disease: An overview of systematic reviews. Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2020; 31(5):315-320. DOI: 10.1016/j.tcm.2020.06.003. View

van der Wouden J, Bueving H, Poole P . Preventing influenza: an overview of systematic reviews. Respir Med. 2005; 99(11):1341-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2005.07.001. View

Foss H, Oldervoll A, Fretheim A, Glenton C, Lewin S . Communication around HPV vaccination for adolescents in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic scoping overview of systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2019; 8(1):190. PMC: 6670236. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-019-1100-y. View

Pham M, Rajic A, Greig J, Sargeant J, Papadopoulos A, McEwen S . A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2015; 5(4):371-85. PMC: 4491356. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1123. View

10.

Engels E, Schmid C, Terrin N, Olkin I, Lau J . Heterogeneity and statistical significance in meta-analysis: an empirical study of 125 meta-analyses. Stat Med. 2000; 19(13):1707-28. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0258(20000715)19:13<1707::aid-sim491>3.0.co;2-p. View

11.

Andrews J, Guyatt G, Oxman A, Alderson P, Dahm P, Falck-Ytter Y . GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66(7):719-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.03.013. View

12.

Sun H, Bu F, Li L, Zhang X, Yan J, Huang T . COVID-19 vaccine response and safety in patients with cancer: An overview of systematic reviews. Front Public Health. 2022; 10:1072137. PMC: 9707626. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1072137. View

13.

Tran P, Riaz M, Chen Z, Truong C, Diaby V . An Umbrella Review of the Cost Effectiveness of Human Papillomavirus Vaccines. Clin Drug Investig. 2022; 42(5):377-390. DOI: 10.1007/s40261-022-01155-5. View

14.

Carlisle J . False individual patient data and zombie randomised controlled trials submitted to Anaesthesia. Anaesthesia. 2020; 76(4):472-479. DOI: 10.1111/anae.15263. View

15.

Chin J, Growns B, Sebastian J, Page M, Nakagawa S . The transparency and reproducibility of systematic reviews in forensic science. Forensic Sci Int. 2022; 340:111472. DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2022.111472. View

16.

Alonso-Coello P, Carrasco-Labra A, Brignardello-Petersen R, Neumann I, Akl E, Vernooij R . Systematic reviews experience major limitations in reporting absolute effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 72:16-26. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.11.002. View

17.

Yuan Y, Hunt R . Systematic reviews: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009; 104(5):1086-92. DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2009.118. View

18.

Ioannidis J, Trikalinos T . An exploratory test for an excess of significant findings. Clin Trials. 2007; 4(3):245-53. DOI: 10.1177/1740774507079441. View

19.

Campbell F, Tricco A, Munn Z, Pollock D, Saran A, Sutton A . Mapping reviews, scoping reviews, and evidence and gap maps (EGMs): the same but different- the "Big Picture" review family. Syst Rev. 2023; 12(1):45. PMC: 10014395. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02178-5. View

20.

Macaskill P, Walter S, Irwig L . A comparison of methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2001; 20(4):641-54. DOI: 10.1002/sim.698. View