Health equity data lacking in systematic reviews, meta-analyses in GA space
Key takeaways:
- Nearly 46% of studies concerning geographic atrophy did not include any equity items in their data.
- Only 31.3% of U.S. studies included these equity items.
SEATTLE — More effort is needed to include health equity information in systematic reviews and meta-analyses on geographic atrophy, according to a poster presented at the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology annual meeting.
“It is unknown whether or not adequate equity reporting is occurring in systematic reviews and meta-analysis (SRMAs) regarding geographic atrophy (GA),” Ryan Emmert, a medical student at the Oklahoma State University College of Osteopathic Medicine at the Cherokee Nation, and colleagues wrote in the study abstract.
Emmert and colleagues conducted a systematic search of three databases for SRMAs about GA and identified 176 studies, excluding 119 after determining they were not related to GA or duplicates.
SRMA data were analyzed to determine if PROGRESS-Plus items — place of residence, race/ethnicity, occupation, gender/sex, religion, education, social capital and socioeconomic status — were included for accurate representation.
Among the 57 studies, 45.6% did not include data on any PROGRESS-Plus items. The most common factors included in the studies were patient age, sex and race/ethnicity.
Only 31.3% of the 16 studies that took place in the United States included these equity items, but they were included in 63.4% of the 41 studies conducted outside the U.S.
As the American Academy of Ophthalmology considers new initiatives on diversity, equity and inclusion, “equitable reporting within SRMAs is even more necessary to increase our understanding of epidemiological factors, as well as provide more comprehensive treatment guidelines for a variety of patients,” Emmert and colleagues wrote.