The umbrella review (UR) is a novel methodological approach that has been established to address the ever-expanding research volume of published systematic reviews. In this study, we examined the rationale underlying URs, the concepts and goals of URs, and their applicability in clinical settings. Additionally, we briefly assessed the process of conducting URs and discussed the current challenges in this regard. URs are used to integrate, evaluate, and synthesize the findings of related systematic reviews. By organizing and summarizing the abundant information in accordance with the level of evidence, URs can serve as a useful methodological tool and provide appropriate entry points to clinicians or decision-makers in the medical field. Considering the availability of many suitable interventions for specific conditions in a broad field, URs can enable evidence-based decision-making and offer a broad perspective for the resolution of issues in healthcare by summarizing the evidence and providing directions on a variety of topics. URs are clearly contributing to the management of the deluge of evidence in evidence-based medicine. However, despite the availability of several directions for conducting URs, some points of confusion persist, especially when determining the certainty of evidence. Therefore, advanced guidelines for the appropriate performance of URs are required to provide more reliable evidence through URs.