Σύγκριση μεθόδων

	Ανασκόπηση Βάσει PRISMA	Επισκόπηση Ομπρέλας
Πεδίο	Επιστημομετρία	Σύνθεση Τεκμηρίων
Οικογένεια	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Έτος προέλευσης	2009 (original PRISMA statement); updated 2020	2009
Δημιουργός	David Moher and PRISMA Group	Grant & Booth (2009), Refined by AMSTAR-2 (Shea et al., 2017)
Τύπος	Structured reporting framework for systematic reviews	Framework
Θεμελιώδης πηγή	Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71.	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.
Εναλλακτικές ονομασίες	PRISMA review, PRISMA-guided systematic review, PRISMA 2020 review, PRISMA-compliant review	Overview of Reviews, Meta-Review, Review of Reviews
Συναφείς	5	2
Σύνοψη	A PRISMA-based review is a systematic literature review conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Originally published by Moher et al. in 2009 and updated as PRISMA 2020 by Page et al., the framework specifies a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram covering identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion — ensuring full transparency and reproducibility in the review process.	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.