Equity issues were not fully addressed in Cochrane human immunodeficiency virus systematic reviews.

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.

Critical EPICOT items were absent in Cochrane human immunodeficiency virus systematic reviews: a bibliometric analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To summarize the current gaps in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) research evidence, describe the adequacy of reporting "implications for research," and map the number of studies that inform reviews with the prevalence of HIV for each country. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A bibliometric analyses of HIV reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews with content analysis of the "implications for research" section. RESULTS: We analyzed 103 high-quality reviews published as of March 2014. They included a median of five studies (min 0 and max 44). Almost all the reviews recommended more trials (89.3%). Limitations in trial design, duration, setting, sample size, and choice of participants were also noted. Reporting of EPICOT+ items was as follows: evidence (35.9%), population (57.3%), intervention (71.8%), comparison (20.4%), outcomes (57.3%), time stamp (34.0%), and disease burden (13.6%). The primary studies were conducted in 67 countries. Six of the top 10 countries in which primary studies were conducted had a high HIV prevalence. CONCLUSION: Knowledge gaps were identified for research in younger participants, over longer periods, using more pragmatic interventions, conducted in resource-limited settings and incorporating economic evaluations. Implications for research are not always reported according to the EPICOT+ format. Not all countries with a high prevalence of HIV are contributing sufficiently to HIV research.