TY - JOUR T1 - How Is Health Equity Assessed in Cochrane Musculoskeletal Reviews? JF - The Journal of Rheumatology JO - J Rheumatol DO - 10.3899/jrheum.220169 SP - jrheum.220169 AU - Nicole Janusz AU - Omar Dewidar AU - Sierra Dowling AU - Harry Wang AU - Rachelle Buchbinder AU - Monserrat Conde AU - Elizabeth Tanjong Ghogomu AU - Lara Maxwell AU - Peter Tugwell AU - Tracey Howe AU - Vivian Welch Y1 - 2022/08/15 UR - http://www.jrheum.org/content/early/2022/10/10/jrheum.220169.abstract N2 - Objective To evaluate the extent to which Cochrane Musculoskeletal systematic reviews assess and analyze health equity considerations. Methods We included Cochrane Musculoskeletal systematic reviews that included trials with participants aged ≥ 50 years and that were published from 2015 to 2020. We assessed the extent to which reviews considered health equity in the description of the population in the PICO (Patient/Population ‒ Intervention ‒ Comparison/Comparator ‒ Outcome) framework, data analysis (planned and conducted), description of participant characteristics, summary of findings, and applicability of results using the PROGRESS-Plus framework. The PROGRESS acronym stands for place of residence (rural or urban), race/ethnicity/culture/language, occupation, gender/sex, religion, education, socioeconomic status, and social capital, and Plus represents age, disability, relationship features, time-dependent relationships, comorbidities, and health literacy. Results In total, 52 systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria. At least 1 element of PROGRESS-Plus was considered in 90% (47/52) of the reviews regarding the description of participants and in 85% (44/52) of reviews regarding question formulation. For participant description, the most reported factors were age (47/52, 90%) and sex (45/52, 87%). In total, 8 (15%) reviews planned to analyze outcomes by sex, age, and comorbidities. Only 1 had sufficient data to carry this out. In total, 19 (37%) reviews discussed the applicability of the results to 1 or more PROGRESS-Plus factor, most frequently across sex (12/52, 23%) and age (9/52, 17%). Conclusion Sex and age were the most reported PROGRESS-Plus factors in any sections of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal reviews. We suggest a template for reporting participant characteristics that authors of reviews believe may influence outcomes. This could help patients and practitioners make judgments about applicability. ER -