Methoden vergleichen

	Umbrella Review	Methodik der schnellen Evidenzsynthese
Fachgebiet	Evidenzsynthese	Evidenzsynthese
Familie	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Entstehungsjahr	2009	2012
Urheber	Grant & Booth (2009), Refined by AMSTAR-2 (Shea et al., 2017)	Khangura et al. (2012), Codified by Cochrane Rapid Reviews (2020)
Typ	Framework	Framework
Wegweisende Quelle	Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108.	Garritty, C., Gartlehner, G., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., et al. (2021). Cochrane Rapid Reviews interim guidance on methodological considerations for expedited reviews of interventions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 130, 13–21.
Aliasnamen	Overview of Reviews, Meta-Review, Review of Reviews	Rapid Evidence Synthesis, Expedited Review, Fast-Track Systematic Review
Verwandt	2	1
Zusammenfassung	An umbrella review is a systematic synthesis of multiple systematic reviews addressing overlapping or related research questions, typically on the same topic or intervention. Also called a 'review of reviews' or 'overview of reviews,' umbrella reviews consolidate evidence when two or more high-quality systematic reviews exist on the same clinical question. Grant and Booth (2009) formally categorized this methodology; Shea et al. (2017) developed AMSTAR-2, the critical appraisal tool for assessing the quality of included reviews. Umbrella reviews are essential when numerous systematic reviews produce conflicting conclusions, when rapid synthesis of evidence is needed for policy or clinical guidance, or when evidence has accumulated faster than any single systematic review can capture.	A rapid review is a systematic synthesis method that accelerates the evidence review process by streamlining or omitting certain systematic review steps while maintaining transparent, reproducible methodology. Pioneered by Khangura et al. (2012) and codified by the Cochrane Collaboration (2020), rapid reviews answer urgent policy or clinical questions in weeks to months rather than 12-18 months required by full systematic reviews. Methodological shortcuts—such as single screening of borderline studies, abbreviated search strategies, or limiting study designs—trades some rigor for speed. Rapid reviews are increasingly vital in responding to public health emergencies (pandemics, environmental crises) and evolving clinical practice questions where waiting for a full systematic review is not feasible.