Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20018100›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2009

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 10: Taking equity into consideration when assessing the findings of a systematic review.

Andrew D Oxman, John N Lavis, Simon Lewin, Atle Fretheim

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Accuracy of measures for antiretroviral adherence in people living with HIV.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Are we producing the right kind of actionable evidence for the social determinants of health?Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine · 2012
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Andrew D OxmanNorwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, P.O. Box 7004, St. Olavs plass, N-0130 Oslo, Norway. oxman@online.no
John N Lavis
Simon Lewin
Atle Fretheim

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. In this article we address considerations of equity. Inequities can be defined as "differences in health which are not only unnecessary and avoidable but, in addition, are considered unfair and unjust". These have been well documented in relation to social and economic factors. Policies or programmes that are effective can improve the overall health of a population. However, the impact of such policies and programmes on inequities may vary: they may have no impact on inequities, they may reduce inequities, or they may exacerbate them, regardless of their overall effects on population health. We suggest four questions that can be considered when using research evidence to inform considerations of the potential impact a policy or programme option is likely to have on disadvantaged groups, and on equity in a specific setting. These are: 1. Which groups or settings are likely to be disadvantaged in relation to the option being considered? 2. Are there plausible reasons for anticipating differences in the relative effectiveness of the option for disadvantaged groups or settings? 3. Are there likely to be different baseline conditions across groups or settings such that that the absolute effectiveness of the option would be different, and the problem more or less important, for disadvantaged groups or settings? 4. Are there important considerations that should be made when implementing the option in order to ensure that inequities are reduced, if possible, and that they are not increased?

Identifiers

PMID20018100
PMCPMC3271821

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.