Suppr超能文献

在 Cochrane 眼部和视力系统评价以及白内障的原始研究中,很少考虑公平性。

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

机构信息

International Centre for Eye Health, Clinical Research Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

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.

出版信息

J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Sep;125:57-63. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.04.024. Epub 2020 May 7.

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.

摘要

目的

我们旨在了解 Cochrane 眼与视觉系统评价白内障干预措施的研究以及原始研究在多大程度上考虑了公平性。

研究设计和设置

这是对 Cochrane 图书馆中(2019 年 3 月底)发表的 Cochrane 眼与视觉系统评价白内障(CSR)(n=23)以及最近发表的包含在这些评价中的原始研究(n=62)的回顾,使用 PROGRESSPlus 框架。

结果

有一项 CSR 将公平性作为一个主题进行了考虑。有 4 项(17%)CSR 有来自中低收入国家(LMIC)的作者;其中有一位是第一作者。将公平性作为主要主题的 CSR 将原始研究限制在 LMIC 进行的研究中;否则,没有一项系统评价将 PROGRESS 因素用作纳入或排除标准。尽管有两项系统评价计划进行,但没有一项 CSR 报告了任何 PROGRESS 因素的亚组分析。两项原始研究由来自 LMIC 的作者领导;42%的研究涉及 LMIC 作者;37%的研究在 LMIC 进行;73%的研究报告了参与者的性别/性别,但其他 PROGRESS 因素的报告较少。有三项研究报告了按性别进行的亚组分析;有一项研究报告了按种族/民族进行的亚组分析。

结论

在白内障干预措施的研究中,很少考虑 PROGRESS 因素和公平性,这反映在相关的 Cochrane 评价中。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验