Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32245522›Full record

ArticleTrials2020

Reporting of health equity considerations in cluster and individually randomized trials.

Jennifer Petkovic, Janet Jull, Manosila Yoganathan, Omar Dewidar, Sarah Baird, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Kjell Arne Johansson, Elizabeth Kristjansson, Jessie McGowan, David Moher and 11 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Social determinants of health in studies using PROMs to assess toxicities associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2026
    Article
  11. Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2026
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

21 authors.

Jennifer PetkovicBruyere Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. jennifer.petkovic@uottawa.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5824-584X
Janet JullSchool of Rehabilitation Therapy, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Manosila YoganathanInfectious Diseases and Prevention Control Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Omar DewidarBruyere Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Sarah BairdDepartment of Global Health, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
Jeremy M GrimshawClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Kjell Arne JohanssonBergen Centre for Ethics and Priority Setting (BCEPS) Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Elizabeth KristjanssonSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Jessie McGowanSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
David MoherOttawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Mark PetticrewDepartment of Social and Environmental Health Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Bjarne RobberstadSection for Ethics and Health Economics, Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Beverley SheaBruyere Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Peter TugwellClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Jimmy VolminkFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.
George A WellsCardiovascular Research Methods Centre, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Margaret WhiteheadPublic Health, University of Liverpool, Livepool, UK.
Luis Gabriel CuervoDepartment of Health Systems and Services, Pan American Health Organization, Washington, DC, USA.
Howard WhiteCampbell Collaboration, Delhi, India.
Monica TaljaardSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Vivian WelchBruyere Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Funding

CIHR MOP 133 556
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe randomized controlled trial (RCT) is considered the gold standard study design to inform decisions about the effectiveness of interventions. However, a common limitation is inadequate reporting of the applicability of the intervention and trial results for people who are "socially disadvantaged" and this can affect policy-makers' decisions. We previously developed a framework for identifying health-equity-relevant trials, along with a reporting guideline for transparent reporting. In this study, we provide a descriptive assessment of health-equity considerations in 200 randomly sampled equity-relevant trials.

methodsWe developed a search strategy to identify health-equity-relevant trials published between 2013 and 2015. We randomly sorted the 4316 records identified by the search and screened studies until 100 individually randomized (RCTs) and 100 cluster randomized controlled trials (CRTs) were identified. We developed and pilot-tested a data extraction form based on our initial work, to inform the development of our reporting guideline for equity-relevant randomized trials.

resultsIn total, 39 trials (20%) were conducted in a low- and middle-income country and 157 trials (79%) in a high-income country focused on socially disadvantaged populations (78% CRTs, 79% RCTs). Seventy-four trials (37%) reported a subgroup analysis across a population characteristic associated with disadvantage (25% CRT, 49% RCTs), with 19% of included studies reporting subgroup analyses across sex, 9% across race/ethnicity/culture, and 4% across socioeconomic status. No subgroup analyses were reported for place of residence, occupation, religion, education, or social capital. One hundred and forty-one trials (71%) discussed the applicability of their results to one or more socially disadvantaged populations (68% of CRT, 73% of RCT). DISCUSSION: In this set of trials, selected for their relevance to health equity, data that were disaggregated for socially disadvantaged populations were rarely reported. We found that even when the data are available, opportunities to analyze health-equity considerations are frequently missed. The recently published equity extension of the Consolidated Reporting Standards for Randomized Trials (CONSORT-Equity) may help improve delineation of hypotheses related to socially disadvantaged populations, and transparency and completeness of reporting of health-equity considerations in RCTs. This study can serve as a baseline assessment of the reporting of equity considerations.

Indexed as

Guidelines as TopicAge FactorsCultureFemaleHealth EquityHumansMaleRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSex FactorsSocial ClassVulnerable Populations

Identifiers

PMID32245522
PMCPMC7118943

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.