Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37147653›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2023

Prioritising Cochrane reviews to be updated with health equity focus.

Eve Tomlinson, Jordi Pardo Pardo, Torunn Sivesind, Mindy D Szeto, Melissa Laughter, Ruth Foxlee, Michael Brown, Nicole Skoetz, Robert P Dellavalle, Juan Va Franco and 12 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for equity in health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
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

22 authors.

Eve TomlinsonPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. eve.tomlinson@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-0969-602X
Jordi Pardo PardoFaculty of Medicine, School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Torunn SivesindDepartment of Dermatology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
Mindy D SzetoDepartment of Dermatology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
Melissa LaughterThe Ronald O. Perelman Department of Dermatology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, USA.
Ruth FoxleeCochrane, London, UK.
Michael BrownMichigan State University College of Human Medicine, Grand Rapids, MI, USA.
Nicole SkoetzEvidence-based Medicine, Department I of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Robert P DellavalleUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
Juan Va FrancoInstitute of General Practice, Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Mike ClarkeCochrane Methodology Review Group; Queen's University Belfast, Royal Hospitals, Grosvenor Road, BT12 6BJ, Belfast, UK.
Alison KrentelSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Ludovic ReveizKnowledge Translation Program, Evidence and Intelligence for Action in Health Department, Pan American Health Organization, Washington, DC, USA.
Ashrita SaranCampbell South Asia, New Delhi, India.
Frances TseDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
George A WellsFaculty of Medicine, School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Robert BoyleNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Jennifer HilgartEvidence Production & Methods Directorate, Cochrane Central Executive Team, London, UK.
Euphrasia Ebai-Atuh NdiCameroon Consumer Service Organisation (CamCoSO), Bamenda, Cameroon.
Vivian WelchSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Jennifer PetkovicBruyere Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Peter TugwellFaculty of Medicine, School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe prioritisation of updating published systematic reviews of interventions is vital to prevent research waste and ensure relevance to stakeholders. The consideration of health equity in reviews is also important to ensure interventions will not exacerbate the existing inequities of the disadvantaged if universally implemented. This study aimed to pilot a priority setting exercise based on systematic reviews of interventions published in the Cochrane Library, to identify and prioritise reviews to be updated with a focus on health equity.

methodsWe conducted a priority setting exercise with a group of 13 international stakeholders. We identified Cochrane reviews of interventions that showed a reduction in mortality, had at least one Summary of Findings table and that focused on one of 42 conditions with a high global burden of disease from the 2019 WHO Global Burden of Disease report. This included 21 conditions used as indicators of success of the United Nations Universal Health Coverage in attaining the Sustainable Development Goals. Stakeholders prioritised reviews that were relevant to disadvantaged populations, or to characteristics of potential disadvantage within the general population.

resultsAfter searching for Cochrane reviews of interventions within 42 conditions, we identified 359 reviews that assessed mortality and included at least one Summary of Findings table. These pertained to 29 of the 42 conditions; 13 priority conditions had no reviews with the outcome mortality. Reducing the list to only reviews showing a clinically important reduction in mortality left 33 reviews. Stakeholders ranked these reviews in order of priority to be updated with a focus on health equity.

conclusionsThis project developed and implemented a methodology to set priorities for updating systematic reviews spanning multiple health topics with a health equity focus. It prioritised reviews that reduce overall mortality, are relevant to disadvantaged populations, and focus on conditions with a high global burden of disease. This approach to the prioritisation of systematic reviews of interventions that reduce mortality provides a template that can be extended to reducing morbidity, and the combination of mortality and morbidity as represented in Disability-Adjusted Life Years and Quality-Adjusted Life Years.

Indexed as

Health EquityHumansSystematic Reviews as TopicCochraneHealth equityPrioritisationPriority settingSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37147653
PMCPMC10161173

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.