Abstract
Decision making should always be based on the best evidence while also taking into account stakeholder values and resources. The traditional hierarchy of evidence puts at the uppermost level a large randomized trial or a meta-analysis of homogeneous randomized trials. This approach is atomically correct but fails to capture the complexity and comprehensiveness of evidence sources. Umbrella reviews, overviews of reviews, and meta-epidemiologic studies offer a novel tool to summarize and appraise clinical evidence at a level which is even more general than that of meta-analyses. Knowledge is an essential prerequisite of effective action, but if such exercises in evidence synthesis are to be truly meaningful, their impact on decision making must actually translate into specific actions. To enable this, while empowering all stakeholders, it is crucial to search appropriately for umbrella reviews, to correctly appraise them, and to correctly grade them in terms of pragmatic impact.
Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech.
Genesis 11, 1–9 (Holy Bible)
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
ACE inhibitors may increase risk of recurrence in breast cancer survivors. Available at: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-04/uoc--aim041911.php. Last accessed on 31 July 2015.
Soranna D, Scotti L, Zambon A, et al. Cancer risk associated with use of metformin and sulfonylurea in type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. Oncologist. 2012;17:813–22.
Taylor ML, Wells BJ, Smolak MJ. Statins and cancer: a meta-analysis of case control studies. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2008;17:259–68.
Corrao G, Scotti L, Bagnardi V, et al. Hypertension, antihypertensive therapy and renal-cell cancer: a meta-analysis. Curr Drug Saf. 2007;2:125–33.
Yoon C, Yang HS, Jeon I, et al. Use of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers and cancer risk: a meta-analysis of observational studies. CMAJ. 2011;183:E1073–84.
Tressler CS, Wiseman RL, Dombi TM, et al. Lack of evidence for a link between latanoprost use and malignant melanoma: an analysis of safety databases and a review of the literature. Br J Ophthalmol. 2011;95:1490–5.
Ioannidis JP, Zhou Y, Chang CQ, Schully SD, Khoury MJ, Freedman AN. Potential increased risk of cancer from commonly used medications: an umbrella review of meta-analyses. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(1):16–23.
Biondi-Zoccai GG, Lotrionte M, Abbate A, Testa L, Remigi E, Burzotta F, Valgimigli M, Romagnoli E, Crea F, Agostoni P. Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study. BMJ. 2006;332(7535):202–9.
Vlaar PJ, Mahmoud KD, Holmes Jr DR, van Valkenhoef G, Hillege HL, van der Horst IC, Zijlstra F, de Smet BJ. Culprit vessel only versus multivessel and staged percutaneous coronary intervention for multivessel disease in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a pairwise and network meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(7):692–703.
Biondi-Zoccai G, Agostoni P, Abbate A, D’Ascenzo F, Modena MG. Potential pitfalls of meta-analyses of observational studies in cardiovascular research. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(3):292–3.
Moretti C, D’Ascenzo F, Quadri G, Omedè P, Montefusco A, Taha S, Cerrato E, Colaci C, Chen SL, Biondi-Zoccai G, Gaita F. Management of multivessel coronary disease in STEMI patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2015;179:552–7.
Wu W, Tong Y, Zhao Q, Yu G, Wei X, Lu Q. Coffee consumption and bladder cancer: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Sci Rep. 2015;5:9051.
Yaphe J, Edman R, Knishkowy B, Herman J. The association between funding by commercial interests and study outcome in randomized controlled drug trials. Fam Pract. 2001;18(6):565–8.
Theodoratou E, Tzoulaki I, Zgaga L, Ioannidis JP. Vitamin D and multiple health outcomes: umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies and randomised trials. BMJ. 2014;348:g2035.
Gartlehner G, Chapman A, Strobelberger M, Thaler K. Differences in efficacy and safety of pharmaceutical treatments between men and women: an umbrella review. PLoS One. 2010;5(7):e11895.
Eco U. Semeiotica e filosofia del linguaggio. 1994.
Incorporating heterogeneity into random-effects models. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011. Available at: http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_9/9_5_4_incorporating_heterogeneity_into_random_effects_models.htm. Last accessed on 31 July 2015.
Melsen WG, Bootsma MC, Rovers MM, Bonten MJ. The effects of clinical and statistical heterogeneity on the predictive values of results from meta-analyses. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20(2):123–9.
Keene ON. The log transformation is special. Stat Med. 1995;14(8):811–9.
Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011. Available at: www.cochrane-handbook.org. Last accessed on 31 July 2015.
Biondi-Zoccai G, Romagnoli E, Agostoni P, Capodanno D, Castagno D, D’Ascenzo F, Sangiorgi G, Modena MG. Are propensity scores really superior to standard multivariable analysis? Contemp Clin Trials. 2011;32(5):731–40.
D’Ascenzo F, Cavallero E, Biondi-Zoccai G, Moretti C, Omedè P, Bollati M, Castagno D, Modena MG, Gaita F, Sheiban I. Use and misuse of multivariable approaches in interventional cardiology studies on drug-eluting stents: a systematic review. J Interv Cardiol. 2012;25(6):611–21.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
D’Ascenzo, F., Moretti, C., Templin, C., Gaita, F. (2016). Moving from Evidence to Action. In: Biondi-Zoccai, G. (eds) Umbrella Reviews. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25655-9_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25655-9_21
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-25653-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-25655-9
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)