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.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Sep;125:57-63. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.04.024. Epub 2020 May 7.
We sought to understand the extent to which Cochrane Eyes and Vision systematic reviews of interventions for cataract, and primary studies, consider equity.
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.
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.
PROGRESS factors and equity are rarely considered in studies of interventions for cataract, and this is reflected in the associated Cochrane reviews.
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。
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。
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。
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。