How to Write an Umbrella Review: A Practical Guide
On this page
- When an umbrella review is the right choice
- Step 1: Define your scope
- Step 2: Search for existing reviews
- Step 3: Appraise the quality of each included review
- Step 4: Handle overlapping primary studies
- Step 5: Synthesize and grade the evidence
- Step 6: Report using PRIOR or a comparable framework
- Why umbrella reviews get pushed back by reviewers
An umbrella review synthesizes findings across multiple existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses on a related topic, rather than going back to primary studies. It's the right tool when your field already has several systematic reviews addressing related questions, and you need to make sense of where they agree, where they conflict, and how strong the evidence actually is across the whole body of work.
When an umbrella review is the right choice
If you're asking "what does the evidence say about interventions for X" and there are already five or six systematic reviews covering different aspects or subpopulations, running another primary-study systematic review may be redundant. An umbrella review lets you synthesize at a higher level -- comparing and appraising the existing reviews themselves.
This is common in fields like nutrition, mental health interventions, and rehabilitation medicine, where the primary-study literature has already been systematically reviewed many times from slightly different angles.
Step 1: Define your scope
Just as with a standard systematic review, you need a clear question -- but here it's framed around which reviews you're including, not which primary studies. Decide upfront: are you including only systematic reviews with meta-analysis, or also reviews with narrative synthesis? Are you restricting to a specific population, intervention category, or timeframe?
Step 2: Search for existing reviews
Your search strategy targets systematic reviews and meta-analyses specifically, typically searching databases alongside dedicated resources like the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and PROSPERO's registry of completed reviews. Screening follows the same dual-independent-reviewer process as a standard review.
Step 3: Appraise the quality of each included review
This is where umbrella reviews diverge most from standard systematic reviews. Instead of assessing risk of bias in individual studies, you're assessing the methodological quality of entire systematic reviews -- using a tool like AMSTAR-2, which checks whether each included review itself followed a rigorous, reproducible process (registered protocol, comprehensive search, dual screening, and so on).
A review with a critically low AMSTAR-2 rating still gets reported, but its findings should be weighted and discussed accordingly, not treated as equally credible to a rigorously conducted one.
Step 4: Handle overlapping primary studies
The most technically demanding part of an umbrella review is that the same primary study often appears in multiple included systematic reviews. If you don't account for this, you risk counting the same evidence multiple times and inflating your apparent evidence base. Tools like the "corrected covered area" (CCA) method quantify how much primary-study overlap exists across your included reviews, and this should be reported transparently.
Step 5: Synthesize and grade the evidence
Rather than pooling raw data, you're comparing effect estimates and confidence levels across reviews -- looking for consistency, identifying where reviews reached conflicting conclusions, and explaining why. GRADE or a similar framework should still be applied to communicate the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome.
Step 6: Report using PRIOR or a comparable framework
PRISMA doesn't fully fit umbrella reviews, since you're not reporting on primary studies. The PRIOR reporting guideline (Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews) is purpose-built for this and increasingly expected by journals publishing umbrella reviews.
Why umbrella reviews get pushed back by reviewers
The most common critique of a submitted umbrella review is inadequate handling of overlap between included reviews, or an AMSTAR-2 appraisal that wasn't actually applied rigorously -- both of which are easy to get wrong if you're doing this for the first time. If you're planning an umbrella review and want a second opinion on your appraisal methodology or your overlap-handling approach before you submit, that's exactly where we can help.
**[Get a quote](/systematic-reviews#umbrella-reviews)** before you submit your appraisal.
Related articles