Search

Background: A focus on equity in health can be seen in many global development goals and reports, research and international declarations. With the development of a relevant framework and methods, the Campbell and Cochrane Equity Methods Group has encouraged the application of an 'equity lens' to systematic reviews, and many organizations publish reviews intended to address health equity. The purpose of the Evidence for Equity (E4E) project was to conduct a priority-setting exercise and apply an equity lens by developing a knowledge translation product comprising summaries of systematic reviews from the Cochrane Library. E4E translates evidence from systematic reviews into 'friendly front end' summaries for policy makers., Methods: The following topic areas with high burdens of disease globally, were selected for the pilot: diabetes/obesity, HIV/AIDS, malaria, nutrition, and mental health/depression. For each topic area, a "stakeholder panel" was assembled that included policymakers and researchers. A systematic search of Cochrane reviews was conducted for each area to identify equity-relevant interventions with a meaningful impact. Panel chairs developed a rating sheet which was used by all panels to rank the importance of these interventions by: 1) Ease of Implementation; 2) Health System Requirements; 3)Universality/Generalizability/Share of Burden; and 4) Impact on Inequities/Effect on equity. The ratings of panel members were averaged for each intervention and criterion, and interventions were ordered according to the average overall ratings., Results: Stakeholder panels identified the top 10 interventions from their respective topic areas. The evidence on these interventions is being summarized with an equity focus and the results posted online, at http://methods.cochrane.org/equity/e4e-series ., Conclusions: This method provides an explicit approach to setting priorities by systematic review groups and funders for providing decision makers with evidence for the most important equity-relevant interventions.

Objective: To describe and summarize equity reporting in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) systematic reviews and explore the extent to which equity issues are addressed and reported in HIV reviews using the PROGRESS Plus framework., Study Design and Setting: Application of the PROGRESS Plus framework to a bibliometric analysis of HIV reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews., Results: The analysis included 103 reviews published as of March 2014, with a median of five studies per review (first quartile; Q1 = 2; third quartile; Q3 = 11). Reporting of PROGRESS Plus factors was as follows: Place of residence (low, middle, and high income; 55.3%), place of residence (urban or rural; 24.3%), race or ethnicity (20.4%), occupation (10.7%), gender (65.0%), religion (1.9%), education (7.8%), socioeconomic position (10.7%), social networks and capital (1.0%), age (1.9%), and sexual orientation (3.8%)., Conclusion: Gaps in the reporting of relevant equity indicators were identified within Cochrane HIV systematic review indicating that research is not consistently conducted through an equity lens. There is a need to incorporate PROGRESS Plus factors into both primary and secondary studies., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Systematic reviews are important for decision makers. They offer many potential benefits but are often written in technical language, are too long, and do not contain contextual details which make them hard to use for decision-making. There are many organizations that develop and disseminate derivative products, such as evidence summaries, from systematic reviews for different populations or subsets of decision makers. This systematic review aimed to (1) assess the effectiveness of evidence summaries on policymakers' use of the evidence and (2) identify the most effective summary components for increasing policymakers' use of the evidence. We present an overview of the available evidence on systematic review derivative products., Methods: We included studies of policymakers at all levels as well as health system managers. We included studies examining any type of "evidence summary," "policy brief," or other products derived from systematic reviews that presented evidence in a summarized form. The primary outcomes were the (1) use of systematic review summaries in decision-making (e.g., self-reported use of the evidence in policymaking and decision-making) and (2) policymakers' understanding, knowledge, and/or beliefs (e.g., changes in knowledge scores about the topic included in the summary). We also assessed perceived relevance, credibility, usefulness, understandability, and desirability (e.g., format) of the summaries., Results: Our database search combined with our gray literature search yielded 10,113 references after removal of duplicates. From these, 54 were reviewed in full text, and we included six studies (reported in seven papers) as well as protocols from two ongoing studies. Two studies assessed the use of evidence summaries in decision-making and found little to no difference in effect. There was also little to no difference in effect for knowledge, understanding or beliefs (four studies), and perceived usefulness or usability (three studies). Summary of findings tables and graded entry summaries were perceived as slightly easier to understand compared to complete systematic reviews. Two studies assessed formatting changes and found that for summary of findings tables, certain elements, such as reporting study event rates and absolute differences, were preferred as well as avoiding the use of footnotes., Conclusions: Evidence summaries are likely easier to understand than complete systematic reviews. However, their ability to increase the use of systematic review evidence in policymaking is unclear., Trial Registration: The protocol was published in the journal Systematic Reviews (2015;4:122).

Objectives: The current format of summary of findings (SoFs) tables for presenting effect estimates and associated quality of evidence improve understanding and assist users finding key information in systematic reviews. Users of SoF tables have demanded alternative formats to express findings from systematic reviews., Study Design and Setting: We conducted a randomized controlled trial among systematic review users to compare the relative merits of a new format with the current formats of SoF tables regarding understanding, accessibility of information, satisfaction, and preference. Our primary goal was to show that the new format is not inferior to the current format., Results: Of 390 potentially eligible subjects, 290 were randomized. Of seven items testing understanding, three showed similar results, two showed small differences favoring the new format, and two (understanding risk difference and quality of the evidence associated with a treatment effect) showed large differences favoring the new format [63% (95% confidence interval {CI}: 55, 71) and 62% (95% CI: 52, 71) more correct answers, respectively]. Respondents rated information in the alternative format as more accessible overall and preferred the new format over the current format., Conclusions: While providing at least similar levels of understanding for some items and increased understanding for others, users prefer the new format of SoF tables., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To systematically identify, define, and classify emerging knowledge synthesis methods through a scoping review., Study Design and Setting: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Methodology Register, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Social Sciences Abstracts, Library and Information Science Abstracts, Philosopher's Index, and Education Resources Information Center were searched to identify articles reporting emerging knowledge synthesis methods across the disciplines of health, education, sociology, and philosophy. Two reviewers independently selected studies and abstracted data for each article., Results: In total, 409 articles reporting on 25 knowledge synthesis methods were included after screening of 17,962 titles and abstracts and 1,010 potentially relevant full-text articles. Most of the included articles were an application of the method (83.9%); only 3.7% were seminal articles that fully described the method (i.e., operationalized the steps). Most of the included articles were published after 2005. The methods were most commonly used across the fields of nursing, health care science and services, and health policy., Conclusion: We found a lack of guidance on how to select a knowledge synthesis method. We propose convening an international group of leaders in the knowledge synthesis field to help clarify emerging approaches to knowledge synthesis., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The promotion of health equity, the absence of avoidable and unfair differences in health outcomes, is a global imperative. Systematic reviews are an important source of evidence for health decision makers but have been found to lack assessments of the intervention effects on health equity. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) is a 27-item checklist intended to improve transparency and reporting of systematic reviews. We developed an equity extension for PRISMA (PRISMA-E 2012) to help systematic reviewers identify, extract, and synthesize evidence on equity in systematic reviews., Methods and Findings: In this explanation and elaboration article, we provide the rationale for each extension item. These items are additions or modifications to the existing PRISMA statement items, to incorporate a focus on equity. An example of good reporting is provided for each item as well as the original PRISMA item., Conclusions: This explanation and elaboration document is intended to accompany the PRISMA-E 2012 statement and the PRISMA statement to improve understanding of the reporting guideline for users. The PRISMA-E 2012 reporting guideline is intended to improve transparency and completeness of reporting of equity-focused systematic reviews. Improved reporting can lead to better judgment of applicability by policy makers which may result in more appropriate policies and programs and may contribute to reductions in health inequities., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The promotion of health equity, the absence of avoidable and unfair differences in health outcomes, is a global imperative. Systematic reviews are an important source of evidence for health decision-makers, but have been found to lack assessments of the intervention effects on health equity. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) is a 27 item checklist intended to improve transparency and reporting of systematic reviews. We developed an equity extension for PRISMA (PRISMA-E 2012) to help systematic reviewers identify, extract, and synthesise evidence on equity in systematic reviews., Methods and Findings: In this explanation and elaboration paper we provide the rationale for each extension item. These items are additions or modifications to the existing PRISMA Statement items, in order to incorporate a focus on equity. An example of good reporting is provided for each item as well as the original PRISMA item., Conclusions: This explanation and elaboration document is intended to accompany the PRISMA-E 2012 Statement and the PRISMA Statement to improve understanding of the reporting guideline for users. The PRISMA-E 2012 reporting guideline is intended to improve transparency and completeness of reporting of equity-focused systematic reviews. Improved reporting can lead to better judgement of applicability by policy makers which may result in more appropriate policies and programs and may contribute to reductions in health inequities. To encourage wide dissemination of this article it is accessible on the International Journal for Equity in Health, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, and Journal of Development Effectiveness web sites.

Background: Systematic reviews are important for decision-makers. They offer many potential benefits but are often written in technical language, are too long, and do not contain contextual details which makes them hard to use for decision-making. There are many organizations that develop and disseminate derivative products, such as evidence summaries, from systematic reviews for different populations or subsets of decision-makers. This systematic review will assess the effectiveness of systematic review summaries on increasing policymakers' use of systematic review evidence and to identify the components or features of these summaries that are most effective., Methods/design: We will include studies of policy-makers at all levels as well as health-system managers. We will include studies examining any type of "evidence summary," "policy brief," or other products derived from systematic reviews that present evidence in a summarized form. The primary outcomes are the following: (1) use of systematic review summaries decision-making (e.g., self-reported use of the evidence in policy-making, decision-making) and (2) policy-maker understanding, knowledge, and/or beliefs (e.g., changes in knowledge scores about the topic included in the summary). We will conduct a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBA), and interrupted time series (ITS) studies., Discussion: The results of this review will inform the development of future systematic review summaries to ensure that systematic review evidence is accessible to and used by policy-makers making health-related decisions.

Importance: Research prioritization should be guided by impact of disease., Objective: To determine whether systematic reviews and protocol topics in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) reflect disease burden, measured by disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2010 project., Design, Setting, and Participants: Two investigators independently assessed 15 skin conditions in the CDSR for systematic review and protocol representation from November 1, 2013, to December 6, 2013. The 15 skin diseases were matched to their respective DALYs from GBD 2010. An official publication report of all reviews and protocols published by the Cochrane Skin Group (CSG) was also obtained to ensure that no titles were missed. There were no study participants other than the researchers, who worked with databases evaluating CDSR and GBD 2010 skin condition disability data., Main Outcomes and Measures: Relationship of CDSR topic coverage (systematic reviews and protocols) with percentage of total 2010 DALYs, 2010 DALY rank, and DALY percentage change from 1990 to 2010 for 15 skin conditions., Results: All 15 skin conditions were represented by at least 1 systematic review in CDSR; 69% of systematic reviews and 67% of protocols by the CSG covered the 15 skin conditions. Comparing the number of reviews/protocols and disability, dermatitis, melanoma, nonmelanoma skin cancer, viral skin diseases, and fungal skin diseases were well matched. Decubitus ulcer, psoriasis, and leprosy demonstrated review/protocol overrepresentation when matched with corresponding DALYs. In comparison, acne vulgaris, bacterial skin diseases, urticaria, pruritus, scabies, cellulitis, and alopecia areata were underrepresented in CDSR when matched with corresponding DALYs., Conclusions and Relevance: Degree of representation in CDSR is partly correlated with DALY metrics. The number of published reviews/protocols was well matched with disability metrics for 5 of the 15 studied skin diseases, while 3 skin diseases were overrepresented, and 7 were underrepresented. Our results provide high-quality and transparent data to inform future prioritization decisions.

Objectives: This article outlines a research and development agenda for systematic reviews that ask complex questions about interventions varying in degree and type of complexity., Study Design and Setting: Consensus development by key authors of articles on methodological challenges in systematic reviews of complex interventions, based on a 2-day workshop in Montebello, Canada, January 2012., Results: There is an urgent need for a more precise and consistently applied lexicon and language to disaggregate several conceptually distinct dimensions of "complexity." Selected current evidence synthesis methods have potential application in reviews where complexity is important. There is a lack of evaluation of methods to better understand the nature of complex interventions and the optimal processes of synthesizing and interpreting evidence from these systematic reviews. Gaps in methods, knowledge, and know-how exist, and there is a need for additional guidance., Conclusion: Understanding how complexity can impact on findings of systematic reviews is critical. Experience in applying methods that have been developed to facilitate this understanding is limited, and the degree to which these approaches improve the systematic review process or transparency is only partially understood. Future research should concentrate on the impact of complexity on the systematic review process and findings and on further methodological development., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Assessment of applicability is an essential part of the systematic review process. In the context of systematic reviews of the effects of interventions, applicability is an assessment of whether the findings of a review can be applied in a particular context or population. For more complex interventions, assessing applicability can be challenging because of greater diversity of, and interactions within and between, the intended population, intervention components, comparison conditions, and outcomes as well as a range of further considerations related to intervention context and theoretical basis. We recommend that review authors plan and conduct analyses to explain variations in effect and answer questions about mechanisms of action and influence of different settings, contexts, and populations. We also recommend that review authors provide rich descriptions of the setting, implementation details, resource use, and contexts of included studies and assess applicability for at least one target population, setting, and context. This should facilitate applicability assessments by end users. Consensus on terminology is needed and guidance should be developed for the synthesis of implementation information within reviews as well as the documentation of applicability judgments by review authors., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Complex interventions present unique challenges for systematic reviews. Current debates tend to center around describing complexity, rather than providing guidance on what to do about it. At a series of meetings during 2009-2012, we met to review the challenges and practical steps reviewer could take to incorporate a complexity perspective into systematic reviews. Based on this, we outline a pragmatic approach to dealing with complexity, beginning, as for any review, with clearly defining the research question(s). We argue that reviews of complex interventions can themselves be simple or complex, depending on the question to be answered. In systematic reviews and evaluations of complex interventions, it will be helpful to start by identifying the sources of complexity, then mapping aspects of complexity in the intervention onto the appropriate sources of evidence (such as specific types of quantitative or qualitative study). Although we focus on systematic reviews, the general approach is also applicable to primary research that is aimed at evaluating complex interventions. Although the examples are drawn from health care, the approach may also be applied to other sectors (e.g., social policy or international development). We end by concluding that systematic reviews should follow the principle of Occam's razor: explanations should be as complex as they need to be and no more., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Reporting guidelines can be used to encourage standardised and comprehensive reporting of health research. In light of the global commitment to health equity, we have previously developed and published a reporting guideline for equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-E 2012). The objectives of this study were to explore the utility of the equity extension items included in PRISMA-E 2012 from a systematic review author perspective, including facilitators and barriers to its use. This will assist in designing dissemination and knowledge translation strategies. We conducted a survey of systematic review authors to expose them to the new items in PRISMA-E 2012, establish the extent to which they had historically addressed those items in their own reviews, and gather feedback on the usefulness of the new items. Data were analysed using Microsoft Excel 2008 and Stata (version 11.2 for Mac). Of 151 respondents completing the survey, 18.5% (95% CI: 12.7% to 25.7%) had not heard of the PRISMA statement before, although 83.4% (95% CI: 77.5% to 89.3%) indicated that they plan to use PRISMA-E 2012 in the future, depending on the focus of their review. Most (68.9%; 95% CI: 60.8% to 76.2%) thought that using PRISMA-E 2012 would lead them to conduct their reviews differently. Important facilitators to using PRISMA-E 2012 identified by respondents were journal endorsement and incorporation of the elements of the guideline into systematic review software. Barriers identified were lack of time, word limits and the availability of equity data in primary research. This study has been the first to 'road-test' the new PRISMA-E 2012 reporting guideline and the findings are encouraging. They confirm the acceptability and potential utility of the guideline to assist review authors in reporting on equity in their reviews. The uptake and impact of PRISMA-E 2012 over time on design, conduct and reporting of primary research and systematic reviews should continue to be examined.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the presence and effectiveness of existing systems of prioritization for Cochrane review topics and to explore methods of improving those systems., Study Design and Setting: We surveyed groups of Cochrane review authors and recorded any evidence of their use of priority-setting processes or policies. To evaluate the effectiveness of the policies we encountered, we assessed them using two frameworks from the literature: "Accountability for Reasonableness" (1) and Sibbald's 2009 framework (2) for successful priority setting. We then held two workshops with the subject groups to discuss our findings and their implications., Results: Of the 66 groups surveyed, 29 had a system in place to inform the selection or prioritization of topics for Cochrane reviews. Fifteen groups used a more comprehensive structured approach that eventually resulted in a list of ranked priority titles for authoring, updating, or disseminating Cochrane reviews. Most groups involved researchers, practitioners, and patients in their prioritization processes., Conclusion: Groups within The Cochrane Collaboration currently use a range of different priority-setting systems, some of which are more detailed than others. These differences often reflect the nature of The Cochrane Collaboration itself: given the topic breadth, history, and variety of international contexts present in the organization, a single unified system would not always be appropriate. All Cochrane entities, however, should have or develop strategic plans to improve the inclusiveness and transparency of their own prioritization processes, increase the number of finished prioritized reviews, and make more effective use of feedback from end users to increase the likelihood of producing reviews that have positive effects on health outcomes., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study aimed to develop and pilot an equity lens that could help researchers in developing a more equity-oriented approach toward priority setting and agenda setting in systematic reviews., Study Design and Setting: We developed an equity lens to guide the development and evaluation of a prioritization process and evaluate its outcomes based on the information derived from a discussion workshop and a comparison with the existing literature on the topic. We piloted the process section of the equity lens across the 13 structured priority-setting approaches in the Cochrane Collaboration., Results: We devised an equity lens with two checklists: one to guide the process of priority setting (nine questions) and the other to evaluate the outcomes of priority setting (eight questions). Of the nine questions, seven questions were partially addressed by at least one of the prioritization projects. Two questions were not considered in any of them. The prioritization projects did not report sufficient outcome data, thus we could not explore the eight question on evaluating outcomes., Conclusion: Currently, there are few strategies in the Cochrane Collaboration that explicitly address the research priorities of individuals from different sociodemographic groups. The equity lens for priority setting and agenda setting can help project teams to develop a more equity-oriented approach to set a research agenda and/or prioritize research topics. However, further studies are needed to evaluate its impact on the prioritization process., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: A knowledge synthesis attempts to summarize all pertinent studies on a specific question, can improve the understanding of inconsistencies in diverse evidence, and can identify gaps in research evidence to define future research agendas. Knowledge synthesis activities in healthcare have largely focused on systematic reviews of interventions. However, a wider range of synthesis methods has emerged in the last decade addressing different types of questions (e.g., realist synthesis to explore mediating mechanisms and moderators of interventions). Many different knowledge synthesis methods exist in the literature across multiple disciplines, but locating these, particularly for qualitative research, present challenges. There is a need for a comprehensive manual for synthesis methods (quantitative/qualitative or mixed), outlining how these methods are related, and how to match the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to answer a research question. The objectives of this scoping review are to: 1) conduct a systematic search of the literature for knowledge synthesis methods across multi-disciplinary fields; 2) compare and contrast the different knowledge synthesis methods; and, 3) map out the specific steps to conducting the knowledge syntheses to inform the development of a knowledge synthesis methods manual/tool., Methods: We will search relevant electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE, CINAHL), grey literature, and discipline-based listservs. The scoping review will consider all study designs including qualitative and quantitative methodologies (excluding economic analysis or clinical practice guideline development), and identify knowledge synthesis methods across the disciplines of health, education, sociology, and philosophy. Two reviewers will pilot-test the screening criteria and data abstraction forms, and will independently screen the literature and abstract the data. A three-step synthesis process will be used to map the literature to our objectives., Discussion: This project represents the first attempt to broadly and systematically identify, define and classify knowledge synthesis methods (i.e., less traditional knowledge synthesis methods). We anticipate that our results will lead to an accepted taxonomy for less traditional knowledge synthesis methods, and to the development and implementation of a methods manual for these reviews which will be relevant to a wide range of knowledge users, including researchers, funders, and journal editors.

Introduction: Tackling health inequities both within and between countries remains high on the agenda of international organizations including the World Health Organization and local, regional and national governments. Systematic reviews can be a useful tool to assess effects on equity in health status because they include studies conducted in a variety of settings and populations. This study aims to describe the extent to which the impacts of health interventions on equity in health status are considered in systematic reviews, describe methods used, and assess the implications of their equity related findings for policy, practice and research., Methods: We conducted a methodology study of equity assessment in systematic reviews. Two independent reviewers extracted information on the reporting and analysis of impacts of health interventions on equity in health status in a group of 300 systematic reviews collected from all systematic reviews indexed in one month of MEDLINE, using a pre-tested data collection form. Any differences in data extraction were resolved by discussion., Results: Of the 300 systematic reviews, 224 assessed the effectiveness of interventions on health outcomes. Of these 224 reviews, 29 systematic reviews assessed effects on equity in health status using subgroup analysis or targeted analyses of vulnerable populations. Of these, seven conducted subgroup analyses related to health equity which were reported in insufficient detail to judge their credibility. Of these 29 reviews, 18 described implications for policy and practice based on assessment of effects on health equity., Conclusion: The quality and completeness of reporting should be enhanced as a priority, because without this policymakers and practitioners will continue lack the evidence base they need to inform decision-making about health inequity. Furthermore, there is a need to develop methods to systematically consider impacts on equity in health status that is currently lacking in systematic reviews.

Background: Enhancing health equity has now achieved international political importance with endorsement from the World Health Assembly in 2009.  The failure of systematic reviews to consider effects on health equity is cited by decision-makers as a limitation to their ability to inform policy and program decisions. , Objectives: To systematically review methods to assess effects on health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness., Search Strategy: We searched the following databases up to July 2 2010: MEDLINE, PsychINFO, the Cochrane Methodology Register, CINAHL, Education Resources Information Center, Education Abstracts, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Index to Legal Periodicals, PAIS International, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Digital Dissertations and the Health Technology Assessment Database. We searched SCOPUS to identify articles that cited any of the included studies on October 7 2010., Selection Criteria: We included empirical studies of cohorts of systematic reviews that assessed methods for measuring effects on health inequalities., Data Collection and Analysis: Data were extracted using a pre-tested form by two independent reviewers. Risk of bias was appraised for included studies according to the potential for bias in selection and detection of systematic reviews. , Main Results: Thirty-four methodological studies were included.  The methods used by these included studies were: 1) Targeted approaches (n=22); 2) gap approaches (n=12) and gradient approach (n=1).  Gender or sex was assessed in eight out of 34 studies, socioeconomic status in ten studies, race/ethnicity in seven studies, age in seven studies, low and middle income countries in 14 studies, and two studies assessed multiple factors across health inequity may exist.Only three studies provided a definition of health equity. Four methodological approaches to assessing effects on health equity were identified: 1) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in systematic reviews (all 34 studies used a type of descriptive method); 2) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in original trials (12/34 studies); 3) analytic approaches (10/34 studies); and 4) applicability assessment (11/34 studies). Both analytic and applicability approaches were not reported transparently nor in sufficient detail to judge their credibility., Authors' Conclusions: There is a need for improvement in conceptual clarity about the definition of health equity, describing sufficient detail about analytic approaches (including subgroup analyses) and transparent reporting of judgments required for applicability assessments in order to assess and report effects on health equity in systematic reviews.

Objective: To determine whether Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group (CMSG) systematic reviews and corresponding primary studies of rheumatoid arthritis interventions report and analyze the data needed to assess the effectiveness of interventions in reducing socioeconomic differences in health and/or improving the health of the poor., Methods: We selected all CMSG reviews on rheumatoid arthritis published since issue 1, 2003. Fourteen reviews were identified; 147 of the 156 primary studies included in these reviews were obtained and assessed. We extracted data on whether the dimensions place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture, occupation, gender, religion, education, socioeconomic status, and social capital and networks (PROGRESS) were reported or analyzed, and whether any interventions were aimed at disadvantaged or low- and middle-income country populations., Results: Among the dimensions of PROGRESS reported at baseline in 147 primary studies, gender (89%) was the most commonly reported, followed by education (25%) and race/ethnicity (18%). Less than 50% of the systematic reviews reported dimensions of PROGRESS even when they had been reported in the primary study. Of 147 primary studies, 6 (5%) were aimed specifically at disadvantaged populations; another 6 reported on effectiveness by at least 1 dimension of PROGRESS., Conclusion: Primary studies of interventions for rheumatoid arthritis generally reported few variables necessary to answer questions about health inequalities. Most CMSG systematic reviews failed to assess those variables even when described in the primary studies. The Cochrane Health Equity Field welcomes the opportunity to provide guidance to systematic review authors on incorporating equity considerations into their reviews.