Jennifer Evans1, Nyawira Mwangi2, Helen Burn3, Jacqueline Ramke4. 1. International Centre for Eye Health, Clinical Research Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. Electronic address: Jennifer.evans@lshtm.ac.uk. 2. International Centre for Eye Health, Clinical Research Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Department of Clinical Medicine, Kenya Medical Training College, Nairobi, Kenya. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Aylesbury, UK. 4. International Centre for Eye Health, Clinical Research Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK; School of Optometry and Vision Science, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand the extent to which Cochrane Eyes and Vision systematic reviews of interventions for cataract, and primary studies, consider equity. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This is a review of Cochrane Eyes and Vision systematic reviews (CSRs) on cataract published on the Cochrane Library (end of March 2019) (n = 23), and recently published primary studies included in those reviews (n = 62), using the PROGRESSPlus framework. RESULTS: One CSR considered equity as a topic. Four (17%) CSRs included a low- and middle-income country (LMIC) author; one of them was a first author. The CSR with equity as a main topic restricted primary studies to those conducted in LMICs; otherwise none of the systematic reviews used PROGRESS factors as inclusion or exclusion criteria. None of the CSRs reported subgroup analyses by any PROGRESS factor, although these were planned in two. Two of the primary studies were led by an LMIC author; 42% involved LMIC authors; 37% were conducted in LMICs; 73% of studies reported on gender/sex of participants, but other PROGRESS factors were less frequently reported. Three studies reported subgroup analyses by sex; one reported subgroup analyses by race/ethnicity. CONCLUSION: PROGRESS factors and equity are rarely considered in studies of interventions for cataract, and this is reflected in the associated Cochrane reviews.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand the extent to which Cochrane Eyes and Vision systematic reviews of interventions for cataract, and primary studies, consider equity. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This is a review of Cochrane Eyes and Vision systematic reviews (CSRs) on cataract published on the Cochrane Library (end of March 2019) (n = 23), and recently published primary studies included in those reviews (n = 62), using the PROGRESSPlus framework. RESULTS: One CSR considered equity as a topic. Four (17%) CSRs included a low- and middle-income country (LMIC) author; one of them was a first author. The CSR with equity as a main topic restricted primary studies to those conducted in LMICs; otherwise none of the systematic reviews used PROGRESS factors as inclusion or exclusion criteria. None of the CSRs reported subgroup analyses by any PROGRESS factor, although these were planned in two. Two of the primary studies were led by an LMIC author; 42% involved LMIC authors; 37% were conducted in LMICs; 73% of studies reported on gender/sex of participants, but other PROGRESS factors were less frequently reported. Three studies reported subgroup analyses by sex; one reported subgroup analyses by race/ethnicity. CONCLUSION: PROGRESS factors and equity are rarely considered in studies of interventions for cataract, and this is reflected in the associated Cochrane reviews.
Authors: Blessing Akombi-Inyang; Md Nazmul Huda; Aletta E Schutte; Rona Macniven; Sophia Lin; Patrick Rawstorne; Xiaoyue Xu; Andre Renzaho Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-28 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Vivian Welch; Omar Dewidar; Elizabeth Tanjong Ghogomu; Salman Abdisalam; Abdulah Al Ameer; Victoria I Barbeau; Kevin Brand; Kisanet Kebedom; Maria Benkhalti; Elizabeth Kristjansson; Mohamad Tarek Madani; Alba M Antequera Martín; Christine M Mathew; Jessie McGowan; William McLeod; Hanbyoul Agatha Park; Jennifer Petkovic; Alison Riddle; Peter Tugwell; Mark Petticrew; Jessica Trawin; George A Wells Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-01-18
Authors: Emma Jolley; Bhavisha Virendrakumar; Vladimir Pente; Martin Baldwin; Eunice Mailu; Elena Schmidt Journal: Int Health Date: 2022-04-06 Impact factor: 3.131