| Ref ID | 1104 |
| First Author | M. Bondok |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2025 |
| URL | https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111717 |
| Keywords |
• Ophthalmology • Cochrane • Equity • Author |
| Problem(s) |
• Failure to consider equity, different socioeconomic groups or disadvantaged populations • Weaknesses identified in some Cochrane reviews • Lack of diversity in review authorship teams |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Canada |
| Checklists |
• PROGRESS |
| Aim | To understand the level of equity considerations within Cochrane systematic reviews published in The Cochrane Library from inception (2003) to January 31, 2024, on glaucoma and their primary studies. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | From the 40 included Cochrane reviews published in The Cochrane Library from inception (2003) to January 31, 2024, on glaucoma and their primary studies: twenty-nine (72.5%) acknowledged populations experiencing inequities in glaucoma care; none were able to perform subgroup analysis due to data unavailability in primary studies. Six (15.0%) reviews considered equity-relevant factors when discussing applicability or limitations of study findings to specific populations. Seventy-four (46.8%) review authors were women, while 84 (53.2%) were men. Most review authors were primarily affiliated with institutions in the European Region (85, 53.8%) or the Americas (55, 34.8%), while none were primarily affiliated with institutions in Africa or low-income countries. Most RCTs were conducted in the Americas (32.8%), European Region (27.9%), or in high-income countries (72.1%). While most RCTs reported gender or sex of participants (107, 87.7%), only half reported race or ethnicity (61, 50.0%). No RCTs reported place of residence, occupation, socioeconomic status (SES), or social capital of participants. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 40 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 40 |
| Treatment impacted | Not Applicable |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |