SynthesisActa paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992)2025
Characterising umbrella reviews in paediatrics: A systematic analysis.
Synthesis in Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Digital Tools' Effectiveness on Physical Activity Outcomes in Children and Adolescents: Umbrella Review.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2026Pooled it
- Characterising umbrella reviews in paediatrics: A systematic analysis.Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) · 2025Pooled it
- Methodological Quality of Umbrella Reviews in Paediatric Dentistry: A Cross-Sectional Study.International dental journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo characterise typical practices in conducting and reporting umbrella reviews in paediatrics.
methodsPubMed database was searched for umbrella reviews focusing on children (0-18 years) published from 1 January 2020 to 15 June 2024, regardless of the speciality. The included studies were assessed for reporting practices, result summarisation and critical appraisal methods.
resultsNinety-nine eligible umbrella reviews were included, of which 49 focused on interventions and 50 focused on epidemiology. The median number of included reviews in the umbrella reviews was 18 (range = 3-302), and statistical synthesis was performed in 32 studies. The most frequently used tool for critical appraisal of the included reviews was the updated Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) tool (n = 56); the original AMSTAR-1 tool was used in seven reviews, and the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews tool was used in 12 reviews. Evidence certainty was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework in 14 reviews and by the Ioannidis criteria in 18 reviews.
conclusionUmbrella reviews have heterogeneous characteristics in terms of reporting practices. Greater adherence to guidelines on conducting and reporting umbrella reviews is needed, particularly for improving critical appraisal methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.