Failure to consider equity, different socioeconomic groups or disadvantaged populations

This problem is addressed in PRISMA-E and MECIR. Review authors may not always consider whether results can be applied to people outside of the study population and may be, therefore, unlikely to seek out and represent the issues that affect the external validity of the review. Recruitment in clinical trials often favours certain populations and therefore evidence included insystematic reviews may not adequately represent all different groups in society. PRISMA-E and PROGRESS-plus are dedicated extensions to promote consideration of these issues in systematic reviews.

Articles that support this problem:

Equity was rarely considered in Cochrane Eyes and Vision systematic reviews and primary studies on cataract

2020 : Journal of clinical epidemiology

The prevalence of and factors associated with inclusion of non-English language studies in Campbell systematic reviews: a survey and meta-epidemiological study

2018 : Systematic reviews

Prevalence and significance of race and ethnicity subgroup analyses in Cochrane intervention reviews

2020 : Clinical trials

Sex/gender reporting and analysis in Campbell and Cochrane systematic reviews: a cross-sectional methods study

2018 : Systematic reviews

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

2012 : Bmc medical research methodology

Systematic reviews reveal unrepresentative evidence for the development of drug formularies for poor and nonwhite populations

2009 : Journal of clinical epidemiology

Equity issues were not fully addressed in Cochrane human immunodeficiency virus systematic reviews

2017 : Journal of clinical epidemiology

Is health equity considered in systematic reviews of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group?

2008 : Arthritis care & research

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

2010 : Cochrane database of systematic reviews

Consideration of sex and gender in Cochrane reviews of interventions for preventing healthcare-associated infections: a methodology study

2019 : Bmc health services research

Generalizability of findings from systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the Leading General Medical Journals

2020 : Journal of rehabilitation medicine

Applicability and generalisability of the results of systematic reviews to public health practice and policy: a systematic review

2010 : Trials [electronic resource]

Research on subgroups is not research on equity attributes: Evidence from an overview of systematic reviews on vaccination

2017 : International journal for equity in health

Authorship diversity among systematic reviews in eyes and vision

2020 : Systematic reviews

Lack of sex-related analysis and reporting in Cochrane Reviews: a cross-sectional study

2022 : Systematic reviews

Assessment of health equity consideration in Cochrane systematic reviews and primary studies on urolithiasis

2023 : Health science reports

Authorship diversity in Gastroenterology-related Cochrane systematic reviews: Inequities in global representation

2022 : Frontiers in medicine