Vivian Welch and colleagues present consensus-based guidelines for reporting equity-focused systematic reviews, the PRISMA-Equity extension.

/pdf/prisma-equity-2012-extension-reporting-guidelines-for-50dje4sr1t.pdf

PRISMA-Equity 2012 Extension: Reporting Guidelines for Systematic Reviews with a Focus on Health Equity

CITATION: Usenbo, A., et al. 2015. Prevalence of arthritis in Africa : a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 10(8):1-19, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0133858.

/pdf/prevalence-of-arthritis-in-africa-a-systematic-review-and-46z9wfvv3x.pdf

Prevalence of Arthritis in Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objective: What roles do librarians and information professionals play in conducting systematic reviews? Librarians are increasingly called upon to be involved in systematic reviews, but no study has considered all the roles that librarians can perform. This inventory of existing and emerging roles aids in defining librarians’ systematic reviews services. Methods: For this scoping review, the authors conducted controlled vocabulary and text-word searches in the PubMed; Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts; and CINAHL databases. We separately searched for articles published in the Journal of the European Association for Health Information and Libraries, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, the Journal of the Canadian Heath Libraries Association, and Hypothesis. We also text-word searched Medical Library Association annual meeting poster and paper abstracts. Results: We identified 18 different roles filled by librarians and other information professionals in conducting systematic reviews from 310 different articles, book chapters, and presented papers and posters. Some roles were well known such as searching, source selection, and teaching. Other less documented roles included planning, question formulation, and peer review. We summarize these different roles and provide an accompanying bibliography of references for in-depth descriptions of these roles. Conclusion: Librarians play central roles in systematic review teams, including roles that go beyond searching. This scoping review should encourage librarians who are fulfilling roles that are not captured here to document their roles in journal articles and poster and paper presentations.  This article has been approved for the Medical Library Association’s Independent Reading Program .

/pdf/roles-for-librarians-in-systematic-reviews-a-scoping-review-5dpqzw2dov.pdf

Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: a scoping review

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 methods
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.

How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions

At the Rio Summit in 2011 on Social Determinants of Health, the global community recognized a pressing need to take action on reducing health inequities This requires an improved evidence base on the effects of national and international policies on health inequities Although systematic reviews are recognized as an important source for evidence-informed policy, they have been criticized for failing to assess effects on health equity This article summarizes guidance on both conducting systematic reviews with a focus on health equity and on methods to translate their findings to different audiences This guidance was developed based on a series of methodology meetings, previous guidance, a recently developed reporting guideline for equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-Equity 2012) and a systematic review of methods to assess health equity in systematic reviews We make ten recommendations for conducting equity-focused systematic reviews; and five considerations for knowledge translation Illustrative examples of equity-focused reviews are provided where these methods have been used Implementation of the recommendations in this article is one step toward monitoring the impact of national and international policies and programs on health equity, as recommended by the 2011 World Conference on Social Determinants of Health

https://www.ruor.uottawa.ca/bitstream/10393/34004/1/13643_2013_Article_109.pdf

Health equity: evidence synthesis and knowledge translation methods

Background: Research on identifying trials using geographic filters is limited.

Objectives:  To test the sensitivity and precision of a filter to identify African randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods:  We searched medline and embase for RCTs published in 2004 using a Cochrane filter for RCTs. The search was limited to HIV/AIDS but irrespective of location. Two investigators independently identified African RCTs from the retrieved records forming a reference set. We then repeated the search using an African geographic filter comprising country and regional terms forming the filter set. We compared the sensitivity and precision of the sets.

Results:  The medline reference set comprised 1799 records with 23 African RCTs; for embase, the reference set comprised 763 records with 37 African RCTs. The medline filter set comprised 180 records with 17 African RCTs; the embase filter set comprised 98 records with 27 African RCTs. Sensitivity of the filter was 74% (medline) and 73% (embase). Addition of the filter improved precision from 1.3% to 9.4% (medline) and from 5% to 28% (embase).

Conclusion:  The African filter improved precision with some loss in sensitivity. Incomplete reporting of trial location in electronic bibliographic records restricts efficiency of geographic filters. Prospective trial registration should alleviate this.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2011.00936.x

Developing a geographic search filter to identify randomised controlled trials in Africa: finding the optimal balance between sensitivity and precision

Liesl Grobler

Papers

Developing a geographic search filter to identify randomised controlled trials in Africa: finding the optimal balance between sensitivity and precision