ArticleJMIR research protocols2025
Effectiveness of The Umbrella Collaboration Versus Traditional Umbrella Reviews for Evidence Synthesis in Health Care: Protocol for a Validation Study.
Article in JMIR research protocols, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The population impact of human papillomavirus vaccination on cancer and pre-cancer outcomes: An umbrella review of meta-analyses.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe synthesis of evidence in health care is essential for informed decision-making and policy development. This study aims to validate The Umbrella Collaboration (TU), an innovative, semiautomatic tertiary evidence synthesis methodology, by comparing it with Traditional Umbrella Reviews (TUR), which are currently the gold standard.
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate whether TU, an artificial intelligence-assisted, software-driven system for tertiary evidence synthesis, can achieve comparable effectiveness to TURs, while offering a more timely, efficient, and comprehensive approach. In addition, as a secondary objective, the study aims to assess the accessibility and comprehensibility of TU's outputs to ensure its usability and practical applicability for health care professionals.
methodsThis protocol outlines a comparative study divided into 2 main parts. The first part involves a quantitative comparison of results obtained using TU and TURs in geriatrics. We will evaluate the identification, size effect, direction, statistical significance, and certainty of outcomes, as well as the time and resources required for each methodology. Data for TURs will be sourced from Medline (via PubMed), while TU will use artificial intelligence-assisted informatics to replicate the research questions of the selected TURs. The second part of the study assesses the ease of use and comprehension of TU through an online survey directed at health professionals, using interactive features and detailed data access.
resultsExpected results include the assessment of concordance in identifying outcomes, the size effect, direction and significance of these outcomes, and the certainty of evidence. In addition, we will measure the operational efficiency of each methodology by evaluating the time taken to complete projects. User perceptions of the ease of use and comprehension of TU will be gathered through detailed surveys. The implementation of new methodologies in evidence synthesis requires validation. This study will determine whether TU can match the accuracy and comprehensiveness of TURs while offering benefits in terms of efficiency and user accessibility. The comparative study is designed to address the inherent challenges in validating a new methodology against established standards.
conclusionsIf TU proves as effective as TURs but more time-efficient, accessible, and easily updatable, it could significantly enhance the process of evidence synthesis, facilitating informed decision-making and improving health care. This study represents a step toward integrating innovative technologies into routine evidence synthesis practice, potentially transforming health research. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/67248.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.