PRISMA-Equity 2012 Extension: Reporting Guidelines for Systematic Reviews with a Focus on Health Equity

Background: Systematic reviews—which identify, assess, and summarize existing research—are usually designed to determine whether research shows that an intervention has evidence of effectiveness, rather than whether an intervention will work under different circumstances. The reviews typically focus on the internal validity of the research and do not consistently incorporate information on external validity into their conclusions. Objectives: In this article, we focus on how systematic reviews address external validity. Methods: We conducted a brief scan of 19 systematic reviews and a more in-depth examination of information presented in a systematic review of home visiting research. Results: We found that many reviews do not provide information on generalizability, such as statistical representativeness, but focus on factors likely to increase heterogeneity (e.g., numbers of studies or settings) and report on context. The latter may help users decide whether the research characteristics—such as sample demographics or settings—are similar to their own. However, we found that differences in reporting, such as which variables are included and how they are measured, make it difficult to summarize across studies or make basic determinations of sample characteristics, such as whether the majority of a sample was unemployed or married. Conclusion: Evaluation research and systematic reviews would benefit from reporting guidelines for external validity to ensure that key information is reported across studies.

Download Full-text

Biomedical conferences’ author instructions rarely mention guidelines for reporting abstracts of trials and systematic reviews

Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research ◽

10.2217/cer-2019-0158 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 9 (2) ◽

pp. 83-91

Author(s):

Lenko Saric ◽

Svjetlana Dosenovic ◽

Jakov Mihanovic ◽

Livia Puljak

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Randomized Controlled Trial ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Reporting Guidelines ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Meta Analyses

Aim: To analyze whether instructions for authors of biomedical conference abstracts mention guidelines for writing randomized controlled trial and systematic review abstracts and to evaluate reasons for their absence from instructions. Materials & methods: We analyzed instructions for authors of biomedical conferences advertized in 2019 and assessed whether they mentioned Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Abstracts and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts guidelines. We surveyed contact persons from abstract/publication committees of selected conferences to analyze why relevant guidelines were missing. Results: Instructions for abstracts were available for 819 conferences. Only two (0.2%) had reporting instructions for randomized controlled trial/systematic review authors. Almost half of the contacted conference organizers whose response we received were not aware of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Abstracts and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts guidelines. Conclusion: Conference organizers do not require and are not familiar enough with reporting guidelines.

Download Full-text

Systematic reviews need to consider applicability to disadvantaged populations: inter-rater agreement for a health equity plausibility algorithm

BMC Medical Research Methodology ◽

10.1186/1471-2288-12-187 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 12 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 15

Author(s):

Vivian Welch ◽

Kevin Brand ◽

Elizabeth Kristjansson ◽

Janet Smylie ◽

George Wells ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Health Equity ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Rater Agreement ◽

Disadvantaged Populations

Download Full-text

Ensuring rigor in systematic reviews: Part 6, reporting guidelines

Heart & Lung ◽

10.1016/j.hrtlng.2021.11.002 ◽

2022 ◽

Vol 52 ◽

pp. 22-25

Author(s):

Janene Batten ◽

Alexandria Brackett

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Reporting Guidelines

Download Full-text

How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions

10.1002/14651858.mr000028 ◽

2009 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Vivian Welch ◽

Peter Tugwell ◽

George A Wells ◽

Betsy Kristjansson ◽

Mark Petticrew ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Health Equity ◽

Systematic Reviews

Download Full-text

Does Consideration and Assessment of Effects on Health Equity Affect the Conclusions of Systematic Reviews? A Methodology Study

PLoS ONE ◽

10.1371/journal.pone.0031360 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 7 (3) ◽

pp. e31360 ◽

Cited By ~ 28

Author(s):

Vivian Welch ◽

Mark Petticrew ◽

Erin Ueffing ◽

Maria Benkhalti Jandu ◽

Kevin Brand ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Health Equity ◽

Systematic Reviews

Download Full-text

New insulin delivery devices and glycemic outcomes in young patients with type 1 diabetes: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Systematic Reviews ◽

10.1186/s13643-019-1171-9 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 8 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Tiago Jeronimo Dos Santos ◽

Juan de Mata Donado Campos ◽

Cristina Alexandra Fraga Medin ◽

Jesús Argente ◽

Fernando Rodríguez-Artalejo

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Type 1 Diabetes ◽

Health Equity ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Young Patients ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Glycemic Outcomes

Abstract Background Optimal type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D) care requires lifelong appropriate insulin treatment, which can be provided either by multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin or by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). An increasing number of trials and previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMA) have compared both CSII and MDI but have provided limited information on equity and fairness regarding access to, and the effect of, those insulin devices. This study protocol proposes a clear and transparent methodology for conducting a SRMA of the literature (1) to assess the effect of CSII versus MDI on glycemic and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) among young patients with T1D and (2) to identify health inequalities in the use of CSII. Methods This protocol was developed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P), the PRISMA-E (PRISMA-Equity 2012 Guidelines), and the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. We will include randomized clinical trials and non-randomized studies published between January 2000 and June 2019 to assess the effectiveness of CSII versus MDI on glycemic and PROs in young patients with T1D. To assess health inequality among those who received CSII, we will use the PROGRESS framework. To gather relevant studies, a search will be conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database. We will select studies that compared glycemic outcomes (the glycosylated hemoglobin values, severe hypoglycemia episodes, diabetic ketoacidosis events, and/or time spent in range or in hyper-hypoglycemia), and health-related quality of life, as a PRO, between therapies. Screening and selection of studies will be conducted independently by two researchers. Subgroup analyses will be performed according to age group, length of follow-up, and the use of adjunctive technological therapies that might influence glycemic outcomes. Discussion Studies of the average effects of CSII versus MDI may have not assessed their impact on health equity, as some intended populations have been excluded. Therefore, this study will address health equity issues when assessing effects of CSII. The results will be published in a peer-review journal. Ethics approval will not be needed. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018116474

Download Full-text