Comparer des méthodes

	Revue systématique basée sur un protocole	Umbrella Review
Domaine	Scientométrie	Synthèse des données probantes
Famille	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Année d'origine	1990s–2015 (Cochrane Handbook 1st ed. 1994; PRISMA-P 2015)	2009
Auteur d'origine	Cochrane Collaboration; Moher et al. (PRISMA-P)	Grant & Booth (2009), Refined by AMSTAR-2 (Shea et al., 2017)
Type	Evidence synthesis method with pre-specified protocol	Framework
Source fondatrice	Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (Eds.). (2023). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Version 6.4). Cochrane. Retrieved from https://training.cochrane.org/handbook	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.
Alias	protocol-registered SLR, pre-registered systematic review, PROSPERO-registered systematic review, protocol-driven systematic review	Overview of Reviews, Meta-Review, Review of Reviews
Apparentées	5	2
Résumé	A protocol-based systematic literature review is a systematic review conducted according to a fully pre-specified and publicly registered research protocol. By committing the review question, eligibility criteria, search strategy, and planned analyses to a registered document before data collection begins, this approach minimises post-hoc decision-making, selective outcome reporting, and the accumulation bias that can undermine the credibility of unregistered reviews. Registration platforms such as PROSPERO and the Open Science Framework provide permanent, time-stamped records of the protocol.	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.