“…[30]To provide guidance on assessing equity for users and authors of systematic reviews of interventions. Aimed at reviewers, users and journal editors. | Development process: • 4 working sessions • Built on previous work by the members of the Measurement and Evidence Knowledge Network • Panel members reviewed the evidence and drafted guidance • Feedback and revision sought Who was involved: International leaders in systematic reviews and health equity, mixed methods experts, social scientists, economists, experts in systematic reviews, experts in public health and health equity, experts from low and middle income countries and policy advisers who use systematic reviews. Members of the Campbell and Cochrane Equity Methods Group and the Measurement and Evidence Knowledge Network | 7 recommendations underpinned by 16 checklist items. Examples provided | Strengths: • Wide range of expertise involved in development • Consensus-based •Descriptive examples provided •Addition of resources to signpost reviewers to sources of help when attempting to answer the questions. Limitations: • Terminology used may not be widely accepted or understood • Greater detail required on how reviewers can operationalise the items | Tugwell et al [31] | “Propose an evidence based framework – or “cascade” – for equity-orientated knowledge translation.” Aimed at reviewers, researchers and users | Development process: Not reported Who was involved: Not reported | 5 steps Examples demonstrate how the steps are applied to 2 systematic reviews | Strengths: • Descriptive examples provided to operationalise items • Open access Limitations: • No information available on how the guidance was developed or tested. • Does not define equity |
Welch et al [32] Welch et al [33] Burford et al [34] | “To provide structured guidance on transparently reporting methods and results for equity focused reviews. To legitimise and emphasize the importance of reporting health equity results.” Aimed at reviewers | Development process: • Consensus-based - Followed guidance for developing reporting guidelines • Identifying need • Reviewing the literature (systematic review and methodological study) • Gathering expert opinion (online survey) • Exploring consensus • Piloting Who was involved: • Equity researchers, decision-makers, clinical epidemiologists, systematic review methodologists, journal editors, funders, practitioners, review authors with LMIC focus, methodologists/statisticians, novice systematic reviewers and established systematic reviewers involved with equity and/or complex population intervention systematic reviews | 14-item equity extension of existing guidance for the reporting of systematic reviews. Provides detailed rationale, evidence, whenever available, an exemplar for recommending each item and examples of good practice. | Strengths: • Wide range of expertise involved in development • Involved non-expert reviewers in development • Consensus-based • Followed guidance on developing reporting guidelines • Provides rationale, evidence, exemplars and examples to operationalise items • Evaluated • Open access Limitations: • Terminology used may not be widely accepted or understood • Greater detail required on how reviewers can operationalise some items, e.g. |
…”