Author Guidelines for Umbrella Reviews

Journal of Iranian Dental Association (JIDA)

1.  Scope and Purpose

Umbrella reviews submitted to JIDA should provide a high-level synthesis of evidence from multiple systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses on a specific topic in dentistry, oral health, or related biomedical fields. These reviews aim to summarize the breadth of existing evidence, identify areas of consensus or disagreement, and highlight gaps for future research.

2.  Reporting Standards

Authors must follow the PRISMA 2020 guidelines and consult the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis or AMSTAR 2 criteria for methodological rigor. A completed PRISMA checklist and flow diagram must be submitted with the manuscript.

3. Manuscript Structure

Title Page

The title should be concise and informative, clearly indicating that the article is an “Umbrella Review.” Include full author names, institutional affiliations, ORCID iDs, and contact details for the corresponding author.

Abstract

Authors must prepare a structured abstract that succinctly summarizes the umbrella review using the following clearly defined headings: Background, Objectives, Methods, Results, and Conclusion. The Background should briefly describe the context and significance of the topic, highlighting the rationale for conducting the umbrella review. The Objectives must clearly state the primary aims of the review, including the specific questions it seeks to address. In the Methods section, authors should outline the eligibility criteria for included systematic reviews, the databases searched, the time frame of the search, and the approach used for quality assessment and data synthesis. The Results should summarize the number and characteristics of included reviews, key findings, and any patterns or inconsistencies observed across the evidence base. The Conclusion must provide a concise interpretation of the findings, emphasizing their implications for clinical practice, research, or policy. If the umbrella review was registered in a recognized database such as PROSPERO, the registration number should be included in the abstract to ensure transparency. The entire abstract must not exceed 250 words, allowing readers to quickly grasp the scope, methodology, and significance of the review

Keywords

Authors are required to provide three to six keywords that accurately reflect the core themes and subject matter of the umbrella review. These keywords must be selected from the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) vocabulary, which is the standardized indexing system used by major biomedical databases such as PubMed. Using MeSH terms ensures consistency in terminology and significantly enhances the discoverability of the article by researchers, clinicians, and librarians conducting literature searches. Keywords should be placed immediately after the abstract and should align closely with the review’s objectives and content.

Introduction

In the Introduction section, authors must clearly articulate the central research question that the umbrella review seeks to address. This question should be specific, focused, and framed within a clinically or scientifically relevant context. Authors should then provide a compelling rationale for conducting an umbrella review, explaining why a synthesis of multiple systematic reviews is necessary and how it contributes to the advancement of knowledge in the field. The relevance of the topic must be established by highlighting its importance to dental practice, public health, or biomedical research. Additionally, authors should present a concise overview of the existing landscape of systematic reviews on the subject, identifying areas of agreement, inconsistency, or gaps in the literature that justify the need for an umbrella-level synthesis.

Methods

The Methods section of an umbrella review must be presented with clarity and precision to ensure transparency and reproducibility. Authors should begin by specifying the eligibility criteria, clearly defining the inclusion and exclusion parameters for selecting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. These criteria should be based on study design, population, interventions, outcomes, and publication characteristics. A detailed search strategy must be described, including the names of databases searched (e.g., PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library), the time frame covered, and any language or publication status restrictions. The study selection process should be outlined step-by-step, including how titles and abstracts were screened, how full texts were assessed, and whether independent reviewers were used to minimize bias. Authors must explain the procedures for data extraction, including the use of standardized forms or software, and how discrepancies were resolved. To evaluate the methodological rigor of the included reviews, a validated quality assessment tool such as AMSTAR 2 should be applied, with results summarized in tables or figures. Given the nature of umbrella reviews, authors must also conduct an overlap analysis to identify and account for duplicate primary studies across reviews, using tools such as the Corrected Covered Area (CCA) if appropriate. The approach to data synthesis should be clearly described, whether it involves narrative summaries, tabular comparisons, or re-analysis of pooled data. Finally, authors should indicate whether the umbrella review was registered in a recognized repository such as PROSPERO, and provide the registration number to support methodological transparency.

Results

In the Results section of an umbrella review, authors should begin by presenting a PRISMA flow diagram to transparently illustrate the study selection process, detailing the number of records identified, screened, assessed for eligibility, and ultimately included, along with reasons for exclusion at each stage. This should be followed by a comprehensive summary of the characteristics of the included reviews, encompassing study designs, populations, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and follow-up durations. Authors must then report the methodological quality of each review using validated tools such as AMSTAR 2 or ROBIS, highlighting overall ratings and specific domains of bias, and resolving any discrepancies between assessors. Key findings should be synthesized to capture the direction and magnitude of effects, areas of consensus or divergence, and any subgroup or sensitivity analyses. To enhance clarity and accessibility, results should be organized using well-labeled tables and figures, including forest plots or summary matrices where appropriate. Finally, the section should critically appraise the consistency of findings across studies, explore sources of heterogeneity—quantified using metrics like the I² statistic—and evaluate the overall strength of evidence using frameworks such as GRADE. All data must be reported accurately and completely, with references formatted in Vancouver style to maintain scholarly rigor.

Discussion

Authors should interpret the synthesized findings in light of their clinical relevance and the broader context of existing literature. This involves comparing the results with previous studies, identifying areas of convergence or divergence, and assessing the implications for patient care, healthcare policy, and clinical decision-making. Authors should critically evaluate the strengths of the evidence base, such as methodological rigor, consistency of outcomes, and sample size, while transparently acknowledging limitations including potential biases, heterogeneity, and gaps in data. The discussion should also address the practical implications of the findings, outlining how they inform current practice and guide future research priorities. Areas of uncertainty or conflicting evidence must be highlighted, especially where results are inconclusive or contradictory, to help delineate unresolved questions and stimulate further investigation. Throughout the discussion, authors must ensure accuracy and completeness, support all claims with appropriate references, and adhere strictly to Vancouver style citation formatting to maintain scholarly integrity and clarity.

Conclusion

In the conclusion section, authors should provide a concise summary of the main findings and their significance. Offer recommendations based on the strength of the evidence.

References

In the References section of an umbrella review, authors must ensure all sources are accurate, complete, and formatted in Vancouver style. References should be numbered in the order they appear in the text, with in-text citations using square brackets. Each entry must include author names (up to six, followed by “et al.” if more), article title, abbreviated journal name, year, volume, issue, and page range. Online sources should include the URL and access date. Cite all included reviews, methodological tools, and relevant literature, verifying each reference against its original source to maintain consistency and scholarly integrity.

 4.   Supplementary Materials

For the Supplementary Materials section of an umbrella review, authors should include key documents that enhance transparency and reproducibility. These typically comprise the PRISMA checklist and flow diagram to detail the review process, the full search strategy for each database to allow replication, and quality assessment tables using tools such as AMSTAR 2. If applicable, an overlap matrix should be provided to illustrate shared primary studies across included reviews. Optional materials like data extraction forms may also be included to support methodological clarity. All supplementary files should be clearly labeled and referenced within the main text.

5.   Statistical and Methodological Considerations

In the an umbrella review, authors should clearly describe the synthesis methods employed, including whether a narrative, quantitative, or mixed approach was used. It is essential to address heterogeneity and consistency across the included reviews, using appropriate statistical measures such as the I² statistic or subgroup analyses where applicable. Authors must also discuss potential publication bias and the methodological limitations of the included reviews, noting how these factors may influence the interpretation of findings. If any re-analysis or pooled estimates are conducted, they should be thoroughly justified, with a clear explanation of the rationale, methods, and assumptions underlying the approach. This section should reflect transparency, rigor, and adherence to best practices in evidence synthesis.

6.  Ethical and Disclosure Requirements

Umbrella reviews typically do not require ethics approval unless unpublished or patient-level data are used. Authors must disclose all conflicts of interest and funding sources.