- Framework of problems / Objective
- Failure to consider equity, different socioeconomic groups or disadvantaged populations
- Systematic reviews need to consider applicability to disadvantaged populations: inter-rater agreement for a health equity plausibility algorithm
| Ref ID | 421 |
| First Author | V. Welch |
| Journal | BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2012 |
| URL | https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2288-12-187 |
| Keywords |
Cochrane External validity Equity Influence General medical |
| Problem(s) |
Overly stringent inclusion criteria affecting external validity Failure to consider equity, different socioeconomic groups or disadvantaged populations |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 10 |
| Summary of Findings | Systematic reviews were rated as having important differences in relative effects across sex and socioeconomic status for a range of individual and population-level interventions. However, there was very low inter-rater agreement for these assessments. There is an unmet need for discussion of plausibility of differential effects in systematic reviews. Low kappa agreement between raters suggests a need for a depth of content expertise and stakeholders on systematic review author teams in making such decisions. |
| Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | Not Applicable |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | Yes |