Objective Umbrella reviews are a new form of literature review that summarises the strength and/or quality of the evidence from all systematic reviews and meta-analyses conducted on a broad topic. This type of review thus provides an exhaustive examination of a vast body of information, providing the highest synthesis of knowledge. A critical strength of umbrella reviews is recalculating the meta-analytic estimates within a uniform framework to allow a consistent evidence stratification. To our best knowledge, there is no comprehensive package or software to conduct umbrella reviews. Methods The R package metaumbrella accomplishes this aim by building on three core functions that (1) automatically perform all required calculations in an umbrella review (including but not limited to pairwise meta-analyses), (2) stratify evidence according to various classification criteria and (3) generate a visual representation of the results. In addition, this package allows flexible inputs for each review or meta-analysis analysed (eg, means plus SD, or effect size estimate and CI) and customisation (eg, stratification criteria following Ioannidis, algorithmic GRADE or personalised classification). Results The R package metaumbrella thus provides the first comprehensive range of facilities to perform umbrella reviews with stratification of the evidence. Conclusion To facilitate the use of this package, even for researchers unfamiliar with R, we also provide a JAMOVI module and an open-access, browser-based graphical interface that allow use of the core functions of the package with a few mouse clicks.

Introduction: The wide range of psychosocial interventions designed to assist people with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) makes it challenging to compile and hierarchize the scientific evidence that supports the efficacy of these interventions. Thus, we performed an umbrella review of published meta-analyses of controlled clinical trials that investigated the efficacy of psychosocial interventions on both core and related ASD symptoms. Methods: Each meta-analysis that was identified was re-estimated using a random-effects model with a restricted maximum likelihood estimator. The methodological quality of included meta-analyses was critically appraised and the credibility of the evidence was assessed algorithmically according to criteria adapted for the purpose of this study. Results: We identified a total of 128 meta-analyses derived from 44 reports. More than half of the non-overlapping meta-analyses were nominally statistically significant and/or displayed a moderate-to-large pooled effect size that favored the psychosocial interventions. The assessment of the credibility of evidence pointed out that the efficacy of early intensive behavioral interventions, developmental interventions, naturalistic developmental behavioral interventions, and parent-mediated interventions was supported by suggestive evidence on at least one outcome in preschool children. Possible outcomes included social communication deficits, global cognitive abilities, and adaptive behaviors. Results also revealed highly suggestive indications that parent-mediated interventions improved disruptive behaviors in early school-aged children. The efficacy of social skills groups was supported by suggestive evidence for improving social communication deficits and overall ASD symptoms in school-aged children and adolescents. Only four meta-analyses had a statistically significant pooled effect size in a sensitivity analysis restricted to randomized controlled trials at low risk of detection bias. Discussion: This umbrella review confirmed that several psychosocial interventions show promise for improving symptoms related to ASD at different stages of life. However, additional well-designed randomized controlled trials are still required to produce a clearer picture of the efficacy of these interventions. To facilitate the dissemination of scientific knowledge about psychosocial interventions for individuals with ASD, we built an open-access and interactive website that shares the information collected and the results generated during this umbrella review. Pre-registration: PROSPERO ID CRD42020212630.

Background: Despite the growing interest in the prevalence and consequences of loneliness, the way it is measured still raises a number of questions. In particular, few studies have directly compared the psychometric properties of very short measures of loneliness to standard measures.Methods: We conducted a large epidemiological study of midwife students (n = 1742) and performed a head-to-head comparison of the psychometric properties of the standard (20 items) and short version (3 items) of the UCLA Loneliness Scales (UCLA-LS). All participants completed the UCLA-LS-20, UCLA-LS-3, as well as other measures of mental health, including anxiety and depression.Results: First, as predicted, we found that the two loneliness scales were strongly associated with each other. Second, when using the dimensional scores of the scales, we showed that the internal reliability, convergent-, discriminant-, and known-groups validities were high and of similar magnitude between the UCLA-LS-20 and the UCLA-LS-3. Third, when the scales were dichotomized, the results were more mixed. The sensitivity and/or specificity of the UCLA-LS-3 against the UCLA-LS-20 were systematically below acceptable thresholds, regardless of the dichotomizing process used. In addition, the prevalence of loneliness was strikingly variable as a function of the cut-offs used.Conclusions: Overall, we showed that the UCLA-LS-3 provided an adequate dimensional measure of loneliness that is very similar to the UCLA-LS-20. On the other hand, we were able to highlight more marked differences between the scales when their scores were dichotomized, which has important consequences for studies estimating, for example, the prevalence of loneliness.

We conducted an umbrella review of systematic reviews (SRs) - with or without meta-analysis (MA) - of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing non-pharmacological sleep interventions for children and adolescents across various clinical populations. We searched multiple electronic databases up to 24/01/24. Meta-analyzable data from RCTs in the retrieved SRs/MAs were pooled using Metaumbrella. Primary outcomes were subjective/objective child sleep parameters. Additional outcomes included child health/functioning and parental sleep/health. The quality of the MAs/SRs was assessed with AMSTAR-2, and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We included 93 SRs/MAs covering 393 RCTs, with 25 (17%, 39% and 30%: high, moderate, and low quality) providing data for quantitative synthesis. Behavioral interventions, usually multicomponent including parent training, psychoeducation, and/or specific sleep therapy/strategies, showed beneficial effects on night waking, sleep duration, overall sleep disturbance, mood/depression, and maternal sleep quality (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.10 to 0.80) in participants with sleep problems without a formal sleep disorder diagnosis. For those with a formal diagnosis (mainly insomnia), benefits were found for night waking, sleep efficiency (subjective/actigraphically measured), and sleep onset latency (mean SMD: 0.49 to 0.97). Those with ADHD improved in bedtime resistance, night waking, parasomnias, sleep anxiety, ADHD symptoms, sleep disturbance, and quality of life (mean SMD: 0.18 to 0.49). For those with autism, sleep disturbance improved (mean SMD: 0.70). However, all findings were of low to very low certainty of evidence. Among non-pharmacological interventions for sleep difficulties in youth, only behavioral interventions are supported by meta-analytic evidence, yet with small to moderate effect sizes and limited certainty of evidence.

Objectives: To assess the effects of and related evidence certainty of interventions for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) across an individual’s lifespan, and to develop a continuously updated web platform for people with lived experience of ADHD as a method to disseminate living evidence synthesis for shared decision making. Design: Umbrella review and platform for shared decision making. Data sources: Six databases from inception to 19 January 2025. Study authors were contacted for additional information when necessary. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Systematic reviews that used meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials were eligible if they compared a drug or non-drug intervention with a passive control in individuals with a diagnosis of ADHD. Primary outcomes were severity of ADHD symptoms, analysed by rater type (clinician-rated, parent-rated, teacher-rated, or self-rated) and time point (short term (12 weeks, or study endpoint), medium term (26 weeks), and long term (52 weeks)), acceptability (participants dropping out for any reason), and tolerability (participants dropping out owing to any side effects). Secondary outcomes included daily functioning, quality of life, comorbid symptoms, and key side effects (decreased sleep and appetite). Data synthesis: Eligible meta-analyses were re-estimated with a standardised statistical approach. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR-2. Evidence certainty was evaluated using an algorithmic version of the GRADE framework, adapted for drug and non-drug interventions. Results: 115 of 414 full text articles were deemed eligible and 299 were excluded; the eligible articles comprised 221 unique combinations of participants, interventions, comparators, and outcomes. For each combination, the most recent and methodologically robust meta-analysis was selected for re-estimation, which gave 221 re-estimated meta-analyses in total, derived from 47 meta-analytic reports. In the short term, alpha-2 agonists, amphetamines, atomoxetine, methylphenidate, and viloxazine showed medium to large effect sizes in reducing the severity of ADHD symptoms in children and adolescents, with moderate to high certainty evidence. Methylphenidate showed consistent benefits across raters (standardised mean difference >0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 1.03; moderate or high certainty evidence). These interventions showed lower tolerability than the placebo, but this effect was not significant for methylphenidate and atomoxetine. In adults, atomoxetine, cognitive behavioural therapy, methylphenidate (and, when restricting analyses to high quality trials, amphetamines) showed at least moderate certainty evidence of efficacy on ADHD symptoms, with medium effect sizes. Methylphenidate, amphetamines, and atomoxetine had worse tolerability than placebo (methylphenidate, risk ratio 0.50, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.69; amphetamines, 0.40, 0.22 to 0.72; atomoxetine, 0.45, 0.35 to 0.58). Some non-drug interventions (acupuncture and cognitive behavioural therapy in children and adolescents, and mindfulness in adults) showed large effect sizes for ADHD symptoms, but with low certainty evidence. No high certainty, long term evidence was found for any intervention. An online platform showing effects and evidence certainty of each intervention across age groups, time points, and outcomes ( https://ebiadhd-database.org/ ) was developed. Conclusions: This review provides updated evidence to inform patients, practitioners, and guideline developers how best to manage ADHD symptoms. The online platform should facilitate the implementation of shared decision making in daily practice. Trial registration: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/ugqy6/ .