Assessing the reporting quality of physical activity programs in randomized controlled trials for the management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis using three standardized assessment tools.

BACKGROUND: The reporting quality of physical activity (PA) programs in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for the management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) remains unknown. This study aimed to assess and compare the reporting quality of PA programs in RCTs for the management of JIA using three difference standardized assessment tools, and to describe the elements that were similar and different between these tools. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted for moderate-to high-quality RCTs of PA programs in JIA, published up until January 2019. Two reviewers independently included 10 RCTs and scored the reporting quality of PA programs using the following tools: Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) checklist, Consensus on Therapeutic Exercise Training (CONTENT) scale, and Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. RESULTS: Results showed that reporting of PA programs in 10 moderate- to high-quality RCTs for JIA management remains incomplete. The average reporting quality (± standard deviation) for all RCTs combined was moderate for the three standardized assessment tools with 70.8 (±14.3)% for the TIDieR checklist, 53.2 (±20.2)% for the CERT checklist, and 70.0 (±18.9)% for the CONTENT scale. Despite some overlap, the three standardized assessment tools (TIDieR, CERT, CONTENT) included different elements resulting in different scores. All tools assess elements linked to PA programs (provider, location, timing, personalization and adherence), but the CERT checklist includes other essential elements (e.g., additional resources, motivational strategies, adverse events). CONCLUSIONS: The lack of complete reporting of PA programs in RCTs for the management of JIA and the variation in scores and assessed elements among standardized assessment tools show the need to improve reporting. Using the most comprehensive standardized tool (i.e., the CERT) and providing accessible supplemental information on PA programs may improve the reporting quality of PA programs in RCTs and help reproduce PA programs in research and clinical practice.

Programs to increase high school completion: a community guide systematic health equity review.

CONTEXT: High school completion (HSC) is an established predictor of long-term morbidity and mortality. U.S. rates of HSC are substantially lower among students from low-income families and most racial/ethnic minority populations than students from high-income families and the non-Hispanic white population. This systematic review assesses the effectiveness of programs to increase HSC and the potential of these programs to improve lifelong health among at-risk students. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A search located a meta-analysis (search period 1985-2010/2011) on the effects of programs to increase HSC or General Educational Development (GED) diploma receipt; the meta-analysis was concordant with Community Guide definitions and methodologic standards. Programs were assessed separately for the general student population (152 studies) and students who were parents or pregnant (15 studies). A search for studies published between 2010 and August 2012 located ten more recent studies, which were assessed for consistency with the meta-analysis. Analyses were conducted in 2013. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The review focused on the meta-analysis. Program effectiveness was measured as the increased rate of HSC (or GED receipt) by the intervention group compared with controls. All assessed program types were effective in increasing HSC in the general student population: vocational training, alternative schooling, social-emotional skills training, college-oriented programming, mentoring and counseling, supplemental academic services, school and class restructuring, multiservice packages, attendance monitoring and contingencies, community service, and case management. For students who had children or were pregnant, attendance monitoring and multiservice packages were effective. Ten studies published after the search period for the meta-analysis were consistent with its findings. CONCLUSIONS: There is strong evidence that a variety of HSC programs can improve high school or GED completion rates. Because many programs are targeted to high-risk students and communities, they are likely to advance health equity.

Strategies to increase the ownership and use of insecticide-treated bednets to prevent malaria.

BACKGROUND: Malaria is a life-threatening parasitic disease and 40% of the world's population lives in areas affected by malaria. Insecticide-treated bednets (ITNs) effectively prevent malaria, however, barriers to their use have been identified. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence on the effectiveness of available strategies that focus on delivery and appropriate use of ITNs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the EPOC Register of Studies, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, HealthStar, CINAHL, PubMed, Science Citation Index, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, African Index Medicus (AIM), World Health Organization Library and Information Networks for Knowledge (WHOLIS), LILACS, Virtual Health Library (VHL), and the World Health Organization Library Information System (WHOLIS). Initial searches were conducted in May 2011, updated in March 2012 and February 2013. Authors contacted organizations and individuals involved in ITN distribution programs or research to identify current initiatives, studies or unpublished data, and searched reference lists of relevant reviews and studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series evaluating interventions focused on increasing ITN ownership and use were considered. The populations of interest were individuals in malaria-endemic areas. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened studies to be included. They extracted data from the selected studies and assessed the risk of bias. When consensus was not reached, any disagreements were discussed with a third author. The magnitude of effect and quality of evidence for each outcome was assessed. MAIN RESULTS: Of the 3032 records identified, 10 studies were included in this review. Effect of ITN cost on ownership:Four studies including 4566 households and another study comprising 424 participants evaluated the effect of ITN price on ownership. These studies suggest that providing free ITNs probably increases ITN ownership when compared to subsidized ITNs or ITNs offered at full market price. Effect of ITN Cost on appropriate use of ITNs:Three studies including 9968 households and another study comprising 259 individuals found that there is probably little or no difference in the use of ITNs when they are provided free, compared to providing subsidized ITNs or ITNs offered at full market price. Education:Five studies, including 12,637 households, assessed educational interventions regarding ITN use and concluded that education may increase the number of adults and children using ITNs (sleeping under ITNs) compared to no education.One study, including 519 households, assessed the effects of providing an incentive (an undisclosed prize) to promote ITN ownership and use, and found that incentives probably lead to little or no difference in ownership or use of ITNs, compared to not receiving an incentive.None of the included studies reported on adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Five studies examined the effect of price on ITN ownership and found moderate-certainty evidence that ownership was highest among the groups who received the ITN free versus those who purchased the ITN at any cost. In economic terms, this means that demand for ITNs is elastic with regard to price. However, once the ITN is supplied, the price paid for the ITN probably has little to no effect on its use; the four studies addressing this outcome failed to confirm the hypothesis that people who purchase nets will use them more than those who receive them at no cost. Educational interventions for promoting ITN use have an additional positive effect. However, the impact of different types or intensities of education is unknown.

Complex interventions and their implications for systematic reviews: A pragmatic approach.

Complex interventions present unique challenges for systematic reviews. Current debates tend to center around describing complexity, rather than providing guidance on what to do about it. At a series of meetings during 2009-2012, we met to review the challenges and practical steps reviewer could take to incorporate a complexity perspective into systematic reviews. Based on this, we outline a pragmatic approach to dealing with complexity, beginning, as for any review, with clearly defining the research question(s). We argue that reviews of complex interventions can themselves be simple or complex, depending on the question to be answered. In systematic reviews and evaluations of complex interventions, it will be helpful to start by identifying the sources of complexity, then mapping aspects of complexity in the intervention onto the appropriate sources of evidence (such as specific types of quantitative or qualitative study). Although we focus on systematic reviews, the general approach is also applicable to primary research that is aimed at evaluating complex interventions. Although the examples are drawn from health care, the approach may also be applied to other sectors (e.g., social policy or international development). We end by concluding that systematic reviews should follow the principle of Occam's razor: explanations should be as complex as they need to be and no more.

Complex interventions and their implications for systematic reviews: a pragmatic approach.

Complex interventions present unique challenges for systematic reviews. Current debates tend to center around describing complexity, rather than providing guidance on what to do about it. At a series of meetings during 2009-2012, we met to review the challenges and practical steps reviewer could take to incorporate a complexity perspective into systematic reviews. Based on this, we outline a pragmatic approach to dealing with complexity, beginning, as for any review, with clearly defining the research question(s). We argue that reviews of complex interventions can themselves be simple or complex, depending on the question to be answered. In systematic reviews and evaluations of complex interventions, it will be helpful to start by identifying the sources of complexity, then mapping aspects of complexity in the intervention onto the appropriate sources of evidence (such as specific types of quantitative or qualitative study). Although we focus on systematic reviews, the general approach is also applicable to primary research that is aimed at evaluating complex interventions. Although the examples are drawn from health care, the approach may also be applied to other sectors (e.g., social policy or international development). We end by concluding that systematic reviews should follow the principle of Occam's razor: explanations should be as complex as they need to be and no more.

An equity lens can ensure an equity-oriented approach to agenda setting and priority setting of Cochrane Reviews.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to develop and pilot an equity lens that could help researchers in developing a more equity-oriented approach toward priority setting and agenda setting in systematic reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We developed an equity lens to guide the development and evaluation of a prioritization process and evaluate its outcomes based on the information derived from a discussion workshop and a comparison with the existing literature on the topic. We piloted the process section of the equity lens across the 13 structured priority-setting approaches in the Cochrane Collaboration. RESULTS: We devised an equity lens with two checklists: one to guide the process of priority setting (nine questions) and the other to evaluate the outcomes of priority setting (eight questions). Of the nine questions, seven questions were partially addressed by at least one of the prioritization projects. Two questions were not considered in any of them. The prioritization projects did not report sufficient outcome data, thus we could not explore the eight question on evaluating outcomes. CONCLUSION: Currently, there are few strategies in the Cochrane Collaboration that explicitly address the research priorities of individuals from different sociodemographic groups. The equity lens for priority setting and agenda setting can help project teams to develop a more equity-oriented approach to set a research agenda and/or prioritize research topics. However, further studies are needed to evaluate its impact on the prioritization process.

Prevention and self-management interventions are top priorities for osteoarthritis systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To identify high-priority research questions for osteoarthritis systematic reviews with consideration of health equity and the social determinants of health (SDH). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We consulted with experts and conducted a literature search to identify a priority-setting method that could be adapted to address the health equity and SDH. We selected the Global Evidence Mapping priority-setting method, and through consultations and consensus, we adapted the method to meet our objectives. This involves developing an evidence map of the existing systematic reviews on osteoarthritis; conducting one face-to-face workshop with patients and another one with clinicians, researchers, and patients; and conducting an online survey of patients to rank the top 10 research questions. We piloted the adapted method with the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group to set research priorities for osteoarthritis. RESULTS: Our focus was on systematic reviews: we identified 34 high-priority research questions for osteoarthritis systematic reviews. Prevention and self-management interventions, mainly diet and exercise, are top priorities for osteoarthritis systematic reviews. Evaluation against our predefined objectives showed that this method did prioritize SDH (50% of the research questions considered SDH). There were marked gaps: no high-priority topics were identified for access to care until patients had advanced disease-lifestyle changes once the disease was diagnosed. This method was felt feasible if conducted annually. CONCLUSION: We confirmed the utility of an adapted priority-setting method that is feasible and considers SDH. Further testing of this method is needed to assess whether considerations of health equity are prioritized and involve disadvantaged groups of the population.

Ensuring relevance for Cochrane reviews: evaluating processes and methods for prioritizing topics for Cochrane reviews.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the presence and effectiveness of existing systems of prioritization for Cochrane review topics and to explore methods of improving those systems. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We surveyed groups of Cochrane review authors and recorded any evidence of their use of priority-setting processes or policies. To evaluate the effectiveness of the policies we encountered, we assessed them using two frameworks from the literature: "Accountability for Reasonableness" (1) and Sibbald's 2009 framework (2) for successful priority setting. We then held two workshops with the subject groups to discuss our findings and their implications. RESULTS: Of the 66 groups surveyed, 29 had a system in place to inform the selection or prioritization of topics for Cochrane reviews. Fifteen groups used a more comprehensive structured approach that eventually resulted in a list of ranked priority titles for authoring, updating, or disseminating Cochrane reviews. Most groups involved researchers, practitioners, and patients in their prioritization processes. CONCLUSION: Groups within The Cochrane Collaboration currently use a range of different priority-setting systems, some of which are more detailed than others. These differences often reflect the nature of The Cochrane Collaboration itself: given the topic breadth, history, and variety of international contexts present in the organization, a single unified system would not always be appropriate. All Cochrane entities, however, should have or develop strategic plans to improve the inclusiveness and transparency of their own prioritization processes, increase the number of finished prioritized reviews, and make more effective use of feedback from end users to increase the likelihood of producing reviews that have positive effects on health outcomes.

Does consideration and assessment of effects on health equity affect the conclusions of systematic reviews? A methodology study.

INTRODUCTION: Tackling health inequities both within and between countries remains high on the agenda of international organizations including the World Health Organization and local, regional and national governments. Systematic reviews can be a useful tool to assess effects on equity in health status because they include studies conducted in a variety of settings and populations. This study aims to describe the extent to which the impacts of health interventions on equity in health status are considered in systematic reviews, describe methods used, and assess the implications of their equity related findings for policy, practice and research. METHODS: We conducted a methodology study of equity assessment in systematic reviews. Two independent reviewers extracted information on the reporting and analysis of impacts of health interventions on equity in health status in a group of 300 systematic reviews collected from all systematic reviews indexed in one month of MEDLINE, using a pre-tested data collection form. Any differences in data extraction were resolved by discussion. RESULTS: Of the 300 systematic reviews, 224 assessed the effectiveness of interventions on health outcomes. Of these 224 reviews, 29 systematic reviews assessed effects on equity in health status using subgroup analysis or targeted analyses of vulnerable populations. Of these, seven conducted subgroup analyses related to health equity which were reported in insufficient detail to judge their credibility. Of these 29 reviews, 18 described implications for policy and practice based on assessment of effects on health equity. CONCLUSION: The quality and completeness of reporting should be enhanced as a priority, because without this policymakers and practitioners will continue lack the evidence base they need to inform decision-making about health inequity. Furthermore, there is a need to develop methods to systematically consider impacts on equity in health status that is currently lacking in systematic reviews.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't: subgroup analysis and equity.

The final report from the WHO Commission on the social determinants of health recently noted: 'For policy, however important an ethical imperative, values alone are insufficient. There needs to be evidence on what can be done and what is likely to work in practice to improve health and reduce health inequities.' This is challenging, because understanding how to reduce health inequities between the poorest and better-off members of society may require a greater use of subgroup analysis to explore the differential effects of public health interventions. However, while this may produce evidence that is more policy relevant, the requisite subgroup analyses are often seen as tantamount to statistical malpractice. This paper considers some of the methodological problems with subgroup analysis, and its applicability to considerations of equity, using both clinical and public health examples. Finally, it suggests how policy needs for information on subgroups can be met while maintaining rigour.

Domains selection for patient-reported outcomes: current activities and options for future methods.

INTRODUCTION: Over the years, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) has worked toward consensus on core sets for outcome measurement in specific rheumatologic diseases. OMERACT core sets refer to the minimum number of domains and instruments essential to address the desired outcomes in trials. "Domains" are the attributes of an activity or function. This article discusses the need for an open process for selecting domains, existing frameworks for choosing domains, and the importance of describing the methods for selecting domains. METHODS: We reviewed the domains selection process of 3 OMERACT groups working on patient-reported outcomes (PRO). We categorized these methods in a hierarchy of comprehensiveness and examined the extent to which they address related issues. RESULTS: There was agreement that a gold standard for domain selection would include 3 important aspects: following a framework, remaining true to the clinical question, and including the clinically relevant outcomes for both benefits and harms. DISCUSSION: OMERACT participants agreed that a guide for the options for developing domains that meet the OMERACT Filter would be useful. More discussion and explanation is needed to outline outcomes related to the patient perspective that are not covered by the current version of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and to explain the usefulness of the population/intervention/comparison/outcome (PICO) structure in domain selection. Future OMERACT work includes addressing these issues and developing a framework based on the ICF to support comprehensive outcome measurements.

Health literacy: what is it and why is it important to measure?

This report summarizes the proceedings of the first Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) Health Literacy Special Interest Group workshop at the OMERACT 10 conference. Health literacy refers to an individual's capacity to seek, understand, and use health information. Discussion centered on the relevance of health literacy to the rheumatology field; whether measures of health literacy were important in the context of clinical trials and routine care; and, if so, whether disease-specific measures were required. A nominal group process involving 27 workshop participants, comprising a patient group (n = 12) and a healthcare professional and researcher group (n = 15), confirmed that health literacy encompasses a broad range of concepts and skills that existing scales do not measure. It identified the importance and relevance of patient abilities and characteristics, but also health professional factors and broader contextual factors. Sixteen themes were identified: access to information; cognitive capacity; disease; expression/communication; finances; health professionals; health system; information; literacy/numeracy; management skills; medication; patient approach; dealing with problems; psychological characteristics; social supports; and time. Each of these was divided further into subthemes of one or more of the following: knowledge, attitude, attribute, relationship, skill, action, or context. There were virtually no musculoskeletal-specific statements, suggesting that a generic health literacy tool in rheumatology is justified. The detailed concepts across themes provided new and systematic insight into what needs to be done to improve health literacy and consequently reduce health inequalities. These data will be used to derive a more comprehensive measure of health literacy.

Influencing health equity: role of the effective consumer scale in measuring skills and abilities in a middle income country.

The 2008 World Health Report emphasizes the need for patient-centered primary care service delivery models in which patients are equal partners in the planning and management of their health. It is argued that this involvement will lead to improved management of disease, improved health outcomes and patient satisfaction, better informed decision-making, increased compliance with healthcare decisions, and better resource utilization. This article investigates the domains captured by the Effective Consumer Scale (EC-17) in relation to vulnerable population groups that experience health inequity. Particular focus is paid to the domain of health literacy as an area fundamental to patients' involvement in managing their condition and negotiating the healthcare system. In examining the possible influence of Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) on health equity, we used the recent translation and validation of the EC-17 scale into Spanish and tested Argentina as an example. Future plans to use the EC-17 with vulnerable groups include formal collaboration and needs assessment with the community to tailor an intervention to meet its needs in a culturally relevant manner. Some systematic reviews have questioned whether interventions to improve effective consumer skills are appropriate in vulnerable populations. We propose that these populations may have the most to gain from such interventions since they might be expected to have relatively lower skills and health literacy than other groups.

Reaching those most in need: a scoping review of interventions to improve health care quality for disadvantaged populations with osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review to identify and describe the scope and nature of the research evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to improve health care quality or reduce disparities in the care of disadvantaged populations with osteoarthritis (OA) as an example of a common chronic disease. METHODS: We searched electronic databases from 1950 through February 2010 and grey literature for relevant articles using any study design. Studies with interventions designed explicitly to improve health care quality or reduce disparities in the care of disadvantaged adult populations with OA and including an evaluation were eligible. We used the PROGRESS-Plus framework to identify disadvantaged population subgroups. RESULTS: Of 4,701 citations identified, 10 met the inclusion criteria. Eight were community based and 6 targeted race/ethnicity/culture. All 10 studies evaluated interventions aimed at people with OA; 2 studies also targeted the health care system. No studies targeted health care providers. Nine of 10 studies evaluated arthritis self-management interventions; all showed some benefit. Only 1 study compared the difference in effect between the PROGRESS-Plus disadvantaged population and the relevant comparator group. CONCLUSION: There are few studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions to improve health care quality in disadvantaged populations with OA. Further research is needed to evaluate interventions aimed at health care providers and the health care system, as well as other patient-level interventions. Gap intervention research is also needed to evaluate whether interventions are effective in reducing documented health care inequities.

Evaluation of evidence-based literature and formulation of recommendations for the clinical preventive guidelines for immigrants and refugees in Canada.

BACKGROUND: This article describes the evidence review and guideline development method developed for the Clinical Preventive Guidelines for Immigrants and Refugees in Canada by the Canadian Collaboration for Immigrant and Refugee Health Guideline Committee. METHODS: The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) best-practice framework was combined with the recently developed Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to produce evidence-based clinical guidelines for immigrants and refugees in Canada. RESULTS: A systematic approach was designed to produce the evidence reviews and apply the GRADE approach, including building on evidence from previous systematic reviews, searching for and comparing evidence between general and specific immigrant populations, and applying the GRADE criteria for making recommendations. This method was used for priority health conditions that had been selected by practitioners caring for immigrants and refugees in Canada. INTERPRETATION: This article outlines the 14-step method that was defined to standardize the guideline development process for each priority health condition.

Tuberculosis: evidence review for newly arriving immigrants and refugees.

BACKGROUND: The foreign-born population bears a disproportionate health burden from tuberculosis, with a rate of active tuberculosis 20 times that of the non-Aboriginal Canadian-born population, and could therefore benefit from tuberculosis screening programs. We reviewed evidence to determine the burden of tuberculosis in immigrant populations, to assess the effectiveness of screening and treatment programs for latent tuberculosis infection, and to identify potential interventions to improve effectiveness. METHODS: We performed a systematic search for evidence of the burden of tuberculosis in immigrant populations and the benefits and harms, applicability, clinical considerations, and implementation issues of screening and treatment programs for latent tuberculosis infection in the general and immigrant populations. The quality of this evidence was assessed and ranked using the GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). RESULTS: Chemoprophylaxis with isoniazid is highly efficacious in decreasing the development of active tuberculosis in people with latent tuberculosis infection who adhere to treatment. Monitoring for hepatotoxicity is required at all ages, but close monitoring is required in those 50 years of age and older. Adherence to screening and treatment for latent tuberculosis infection is poor, but it can be increased if care is delivered in a culturally sensitive manner. INTERPRETATION: Immigrant populations have high rates of active tuberculosis that could be decreased by screening for and treating latent tuberculosis infection. Several patient, provider and infrastructure barriers, poor diagnostic tests, and the long treatment course, however, limit effectiveness of current programs. Novel approaches that educate and engage patients, their communities and primary care practitioners might improve the effectiveness of these programs.

Using logic models to capture complexity in systematic reviews.

Logic models have long been used to understand complex programs to improve social and health outcomes. They illustrate how a program is designed to achieve its intended outcomes. They also can be used to describe connections between determinants of outcomes, for example, low high-school graduation rates or spiraling obesity rates, thus aiding the development of interventions that target causal factors. However, these models have not often been used in systematic reviews. This paper argues that logic models can be valuable in the systematic review process. First, they can aid in the conceptualization of the review focus and illustrate hypothesized causal links, identify effect mediators or moderators, specify intermediate outcomes and potential harms, and justify a priori subgroup analyses when differential effects are anticipated. Second, logic models can be used to direct the review process more specifically. They can help justify narrowing the scope of a review, identify the most relevant inclusion criteria, guide the literature search, and clarify interpretation of results when drawing policy-relevant conclusions about review findings. We present examples that explain how logic models have been used and how they can be applied at different stages in a systematic review. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

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 STRATEGY: 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.