EVIDENCEREVIEWANDSYNTHESISMETHODSGUIDE

FortheGlobalSafetyEvidenceCentre

IngridAbreuScherer,NancyHeyandDr.ElizabethAdjoaKumahSeptember2025

WithexpertinputfromProf.MikelaChatzimichailidou,Dr.AdamCooper,Prof.KevinDaniels,RuthFrankishandProf.ArnabMajumdar.

PhotobyFahrul

Azmi

1

ThisdocumentwillbereviewedandupdatedinSeptember2026

ThisdocumentwillbereviewedandupdatedinSeptember2026

GlobalSafetyEvidenceCentre/ReviewsandSynthesisMethodsGuide

2

ThisdocumentwillbereviewedandupdatedinSeptember2026

Contents

1.Introduction 5

1.1Ourevidencepriorities 5

1.2Highqualityevidence 6

1.3WorkingwiththeCentre 7

1.4Theprojectconsultationgroup 7

1.5Aboutthisguide 7

1.6Howtousethisguide 8

2.Reviewingtheglobalsafetyevidencebase 8

2.1Ourapproachtoevidencesynthesis 9

2.3Typesandsourcesofevidence 10

2.5Equityconsiderationsinevidencereviews 11

3.Reviewingtheevidence 16

3.1Typesofreviewsandsyntheses 16

3.2Selectingtherightreviewapproach 21

4.Stagesofareview 23

5.Formulatingaresearchquestion 24

5.1Involvingpractitionersindevelopingresearchquestions 25

5.2Frameworksfordevelopingreviewquestionsandinclusioncriteria 25

5.3Otherlimitationsforinclusion 26

6.Developingareviewprotocol 28

6.1Registeringthereviewprotocolandrecordingchanges 28

6.2Whattoincludeinareviewprotocol 28

7.Searchstrategiesandsourcesforsafetytopics 30

7.1Developingandtestingsearchstrings 30

7.2Searchingforcontestedconcepts 33

7.3Selectingbibliographicdatabasesforsafetytopics 33

7.3GreyLiteratureandcallforevidence 34

7.4Documentingthesearchstrategy 35

GlobalSafetyEvidenceCentre/ReviewsandSynthesisMethodsGuide

3

ThisdocumentwillbereviewedandupdatedinSeptember2026

7.4Additionalsearches 36

7.5Usingsoftwareinsearches 36

8.Studyselection 37

8.1Screeningandselectingstudies 37

8.2Duplicatepublicationsofthesamestudy 37

8.2UsingArtificialIntelligencetools 38

8.3Documentingthestudyselection 39

9.Dataextraction 41

9.1Whatdatatorecordforeachstudy 41

10.Qualityassessment 42

10.1Thequalityofincludedstudies 42

10.1.1Assessingexternalvalidityofincludedstudies 44

10.2Assessingthecertaintyofreviewfindings 44

10.2.1ApplyingGRADEtoquantitativesynthesisfindings 45

11.2.1ApplyingGRADE-CERQualtoqualitativesynthesisfindings 47

11.Synthesis 49

11.1Narrativesynthesis 49

11.2Meta-analysisandquantitativesynthesis 50

11.2Summarisingthefindingsinatable 50

11.4Developingevidencestatements 51

11.3Developingatheoryormodelbasedontheevidence 52

12.Reporting 54

12.1UsingPRISMAreportingstandards 54

12.2Executivesummary 55

12.3Illustratingandcontextualisingthefindings 55

13.Communicatingthefindings 56

15.Livingreviewsofsafetyevidence 58

14.CaseStudySynthesis 60

AppendixA:Standardsandmanualsbyreviewtype 63

GlobalSafetyEvidenceCentre/ReviewsandSynthesisMethodsGuide

4

ThisdocumentwillbereviewedandupdatedinSeptember2026

AppendixB:Assessingthequalityofincludedstudies 66

AppendixC:PRISMA2020checklist 67

AppendixD:CaseStudySynthesisqualityframeworkandpractitionertemplate 71

D.1Qualityofincludedstudiesframework 71

D.2CaseStudyTemplateforpractitioners 73

References 76

1.Mainhandbooksandguides 76

2.Otherreferences 76

GlobalSafetyEvidenceCentre/ReviewsandSynthesisMethodsGuide

5

ThisdocumentwillbereviewedandupdatedinSeptember2026

1.Introduction

Evidenceiscriticaltoimprovingsafety–butoftendoesnotyetexistorisnoteasilyaccessible.

Acrosstheworldandacrossdifferentsectors,thereisahugeopportunitytoimprovesafetyoutcomesbygeneratingbetterqualityevidenceonboththescaleandnatureofthechallenges,andonwhatworkstoaddressthem.Butsimplygeneratingthat

evidenceisnotenough–itmustalsoberelevant,understandable,accessibleandactionablebythoseinapositiontoputitintopractice.

(Engineeringasaferworld:Lloyd’sRegisterFoundationStrategy2024-2029)

Lloyd’sRegisterFoundationisaglobalsafetycharitywithamissiontoengineerasafer

world.Wedothisbyharnessingourheritagetoshapeasaferandmoresustainableoceaneconomyforthefutureandfindingandsharingthebestevidenceandinsightonwhat

workstoimprovesafety.

TheFoundation’sGlobalSafetyEvidenceCentre(theCentre)wasestablishedin2025asacomprehensivehubforanyonewhoneedstoknow‘whatworks’tomakepeoplesafer.TheCentreworkswithawiderangeofinstitutions,teamsandpractitionersandwithglobal

practitionerbodiesandinternationalorganisationstoensurethatthemostimportantresearchquestionsareansweredinthebestwaysandinatimelymanner.

1.1Ourevidencepriorities

TheCentrecollatesandcommunicatesthebestsafetyevidencefromtheFoundation

(includingtheWorldRiskPoll),ourpartnersandothersourcesonboththenatureandscaleofglobalsafetychallenges,andwhatworkstoaddressthem.

Wefocusonsafework,particularlyin‘highhazard’industries,butourremitisnotlimitedtooccupationalsafety.Wealsocreateandcollateevidenceonsafetysystemsandprocesses,particularlyinrelationtothemaritimeandcriticalinfrastructuresectorsthatarethefocusofmuchoftheFoundation’swork.Wesupportthedevelopmentofsafetyscienceandwaysofunderstandingsafetyoutcomesandeffectiveness.

Wewanttoworkonunderstandingandsolvingsafetychallenges,thatis:foreseeable,solvableorpreventablesafetyissuesthatareglobalinnatureand/orscale.

GlobalSafetyEvidenceCentre/ReviewsandSynthesisMethodsGuide

6

ThisdocumentwillbereviewedandupdatedinSeptember2026

Ourfundingsupportsindependentresearchprojectsincludingevaluationandtrials,data

analysis,evidencesynthesis,andexploringconceptsandindicators.Wetranslateandshareevidenceinaccessibleandactionableforms,andweworkwithpolicymakers,practitionersandpartnerstoidentifytopicalareasofresearchinterest.

TheCentre’saudiencesinclude:

?Practitioners:anyonewhocanuseourevidenceintheirworktosupportsafe

work,includingemployers,managersandsupervisors,HRprofessionals,regulators,policymakersandcampaigners.Practitionersmayworkinindustryorgovernment,publicorprivatesectors,charitiesandcommunities.

?Researchers:anyonewhogeneratesevidencewhichcanbeusedbyothersintheirwork,includinguniversityacademics,evaluatorsandresearchconsultants.

?Lloyd’sRegisterFoundation:teamsaroundtheFoundationuseourevidencetomakestrategicfundingandotherdecisionsacrossourportfolios.

1.2Highqualityevidence

Asatrustedglobalsourceofevidenceonsafety,wesupportresearchwhichis:

1.Robustandcredible:usingtestedmethods,establishedstandardsandtransparentreportingsothatpractitionersandresearcherscanbeconfidentinourfindings.

2.Relevantanduseful:respondingtotheevolvingneedsofpractitionersandgeneratinginsightstheycanactonindifferentcontextsaroundtheworld.

3.Communicatedwell:throughsimpleandaccessiblemeanstoreachasmanypeopleaspossibleandhelpthemputtheevidenceintopractice.

Weworkcloselyalongsideresearchersandbringtogetherpractitionersandpolicymakerstomakesureanyevidencewepublishinour

GlobalSafetyEvidenceLibrary

meetsthesecriteria.Theguidanceinthisguideandinthestandardsandmanualssetoutthroughoutwillhelpensureourreviewsarerobust,relevantandcommunicatedwell.

GlobalSafetyEvidenceCentre/ReviewsandSynthesisMethodsGuide

7

ThisdocumentwillbereviewedandupdatedinSeptember2026

1.3WorkingwiththeCentre

Ourteamwillworkcloselywiththeresearchteamtohelpensurethesuccessoftheprojectandthequalityoftheresearch.Weconnectresearcherstopractitionersandourwider

network,aswellasotherresearchersworkinginourevidencecommunity.

Ourevidencereviewsinvolveexpertsfromresearch,policyandpracticethroughouttoensurethatthefindingsarecredibleandrelevant.Weworkwithresearchteamsand

audiencestodeveloprecommendationsandtotranslatetheevidenceintosummaries,briefings,infographicsandpracticaltools.

1.4Theprojectconsultationgroup

WeexpectallreviewprojectstoincludeaProjectConsultationGrouptohelpsteerthe

projectandensurethefindingsareusefulandpracticalforendusers.TheCentrewillworkwiththeresearchteamtobringtogetherthisconsultationgroupforeachproject.This

groupshouldbemadeupofmethods,topicandpracticestakeholders,aswellasa

representativeoftheCentre’sExpertAdvisoryPanel.Theconsultationgroupwillmeetwiththereviewteamatleastthreetimesduringthecourseofaprojectinorderto:

?Developresearchquestionsandinclusioncriteria.

?Ensurethereviewmethodsareappropriatetothetopic.

?Identifyrelevantstudiesandgreyliterature.

?Sense-checkfindingsandinterpretations.

?Translateandcommunicatefindingswiththeirnetworks.

1.5Aboutthisguide

ThisguidesetsouttheapproachforconductingevidencereviewsfortheCentre,includingthestandardsandtoolsthatensuretheyarerobustandcredible,andtheprocessesandpeoplethatmakethemrelevantandpractical.Theguideisstructuredaroundthestagesofanevidencereview,fromdevelopingtheresearchquestion(s)tocommunicatingthe

results.Ineachsectionwesetoutwhatwearelookingforinourevidencereviewsandgiveexamplesandsuggestionstohelpreviewersintheirwork.Wherefurtherreadingmaybe

useful,wehavesignpostedtotherelevantsources.

GlobalSafetyEvidenceCentre/ReviewsandSynthesisMethodsGuide

8

ThisdocumentwillbereviewedandupdatedinSeptember2026

1.6Howtousethisguide

Thisguidehasbeenproducedtosupportevidencereviewers,academics,researchers,andpolicymakerstocollate,synthesiseandcommunicateevidenceonsafeworkandsafetyscience(includingsafetysystemsandprocesses).Theguideincludesstandard

approachesthatareapplicabletoeveryevidencereview(i.e.,developinganevidencereviewprotocol,conductingliteraturesearchesandselectingstudies,dataextraction,qualityassessment,datasynthesis,andinterpretingtheresults).Thedocumentalsoincludesguidanceonhowtoapplyotherapproachessuchasequityconsiderationsinevidencereviewsandconductingcasestudysynthesis.

Thedocumentisintendedasanintroductiontoourreviewapproach,notacomprehensiveguide.Itisnotintendedtobeprescriptive,andweencourageevidencereviewerstoadaptmethodstothespecificcontextoftheirprojectsandtoapplyinnovativeapproaches

whereconfidenttodosoinlinewiththedevelopmentsinthefield.

2.Reviewingtheglobalsafetyevidencebase

‘Whatworks’isamethodthatcanbeusedtoimprovetheimpactthatresearchfindingshaveonpeople’slives.

Itisbasedontheprinciplethatgooddecisionmakingisunderpinnedbygood

evidence,andifthatevidenceisn’tavailable,robustwaysofgeneratingthatevidenceshouldbeestablished.‘Whatworks’recognisesthatresearchevidenceonitsownisnotenough;youneedtoknowhowandwhysomethingworks,forwho,andfinally,howtoimplementwhatisknown.

(

Lloyd’sRegisterFoundation,2024

)

Safetyinterventionshavethepotentialtoreduceharms,accidentsandinjuriestopeoplearoundtheworld,butpolicymakersandpractitionerscan’tbecertainthattheyaresafe

andeffectivewithoutgoodevidence.Evidencereviewsareneededthatshowinterventionsaresafe,effectiveandcosteffective.

Theevidencebaseonsafeworkispatchy,withsomeinterventions,sectorsand

occupationsreceivingmoreattentionthanothers.Evidenceanddataarenotequallydistributedacrosstheworldorfordifferentgroupsofpeople.

GlobalSafetyEvidenceCentre/ReviewsandSynthesisMethodsGuide

9

ThisdocumentwillbereviewedandupdatedinSeptember2026

Evidenceonsafetyismulti-andinterdisciplinary,includingoccupationalsafety,safety

systems,operationalsafety,engineeringsafetyandenvironmentalsafety.Somedisciplinesaremorelikelythanotherstoproduceevaluationsandinterventionstudies(occupationalsafety)whileothershaveagreaterfocusontestingofmaterialsandsystems(engineering).

Muchoftheevidencecomesfromprivateorganisations,governmentsandregulatory

bodieswhichpublishoutsideacademicjournals,forexampleonorganisationalwebsites.

Practitionershaveessentialevidenceonhowsafetyculturesandpracticesworkindifferentsettingsandworkplaces.

Manyofthesesectorsanddisciplineshavedifferentdefinitionsofsafetyanddifferentwaysofmeasuringit.Allofthesechallengesmakesynthesisingtheevidencechallengingandworthdoing.

Somechallengeswithreviewingthesafetyevidencebase

●Lackofconceptualconsistencyforsafety

●Trendsinconcepts,e.g.useoftermssuchas‘resilience’,‘reliability’,insteadof‘safety’

●Useofacronymsintitlesandabstractsmakessearchesdifficultandmayrequiremanyvariationsofsearchstringstofindtherelevantstudies

●Differentdisciplineshavedifferentreportingstandards(engineering,systemssafetyvsoccupationalsafety)

●Differentsectorshavedifferenthistoriesandappetitesforusingevidenceinpractice-makesmakingrecommendationharderinsomereviewsthanothers

2.1Ourapproachtoevidencesynthesis

TheCentreawardsresearchgrants,directlycommissionsevidencereviews,conducts

internalevidencesynthesis,andbringsinexistingexternallyconductedevidencereviewsintoourevidencebankandlivingreviews.Weuseestablishedmethodsandsupport

innovationandtestingofnewapproachesthatmaybemoresuitedtoourtopics.

Ourevidencereviewsinvolveexpertsfrompolicyandpracticethroughout,fromdevelopingresearchquestionstointerpretingandcommunicatingresults.Thisensurestheevidenceisrelevantandaccessible,andpeoplefeelconfidentmakingdecisions.

GlobalSafetyEvidenceCentre/ReviewsandSynthesisMethodsGuide

10

ThisdocumentwillbereviewedandupdatedinSeptember2026

Weareinterestedinevidencereviewsthat:

●Establishinterventioneffectiveness,andcosteffectiveness

●Exploreaproblemandmaptheexistingevidencebase

●Refineimportantconcepts,andassessmethodsandmeasures

●Bringtogetherpractitionerevidenceandexpertise/tacitknowledge

2.3Typesandsourcesofevidence

Evidenceonsafetycomesfromarangeofsourcesandtakesdifferentforms.Safety

scienceismultidisciplinary,andsomesafetyrisksthemselvesarisefromdisciplinary

dividesandsilosinresearchandpractice.Oneaimofourevidencereviewsistosearchwidelyforthebestevidenceandapplyrobuststandardswhensynthesisingitsothatpractitionersareconfidentinusingit.

Ourevidencereviewsincludeacombinationof:

●Quantitativeevidencetoestablishinterventioneffectiveness,includingfordifferentpopulationsinarangeofsettings.Thisevidencemaytaketheformofrandomised

controlled,quasi-experimentalorobservationalstudies(e.g.,cohortstudies),projectevaluations,orsecondarydataanalysis.

●Qualitativeevidencetounderstandhowandwhyaninterventionworks,howpeopledefineconcepts,howtheyfeelaboutchangesandinnovations,andwhatisneededtoimplementsomethingsuccessfully.Thismaytaketheformofpublishedqualitative

studies,implementationandprocessevaluations,practitionercasestudies,afterincidentreviewsandsoon.

●Greyliterature,includingreportsproducedbygovernmentbodies,regulators,

charities,privatecompanies,industrybodiesandthinktanks,andotherevidencewhichisnotpublishedinacademicsources.

GlobalSafetyEvidenceCentre/ReviewsandSynthesisMethodsGuide

11

ThisdocumentwillbereviewedandupdatedinSeptember2026

TheroleofGreyLiteratureinreviewsofsafetytopics

GreyLiteratureplaysanessentialroleinreviewsbycounteringtheeffectsofpublicationbiasandincludingtheexperienceofpractitioners.

Whenitcomestoreviewsofsafetytopics(especiallyengineering),GreyLiteratureis

particularlyimportantsinceformaltrials,reportingandpublishingarelesscommonthaninotherdisciplines.

TypesofGreyliteraturewhicharekeysourcesofsafety-relatedinformationinclude:

?Guidance,standardsandwhitepaperspublishedbyregulatorsorgovernmentdepartments.

?Safetyimpactassessmentsandtechnicalreportspublishedbyindustrybodies.

?Trainingmanuals,incidencereportsorpilotspublishedbyprivatecompanies.

Youcanreadmoreabouthowtofindgreyliteraturelaterinthisguide.

2.5Equityconsiderationsinevidencereviews

Asaglobalevidencecentre,ourreviewsbringtogetherthebestevidencefromacrosstheworld,mindfuloflocalorregionaldifferencesandthedisparitiesinpublicationanduseofevidence.Ourreviewsconsiderandanalysetheprevalenceofsafetyrisksbetweenandwithinoccupations,sectors,regions,populationsandcontexts.Reviewsofinterventionslooknotjustfor‘whatworks’,but‘howwell,forwhom,andinwhatcontexts’.

TheCentreaimstodrawoutthedistributionalimpactsofnewtechnologies,interventions,andapproachessothatourevidencecanhelpreduceinequalitiesinoutcomes.Toachievethis,weaimtosearchfor,synthesiseandreportonvariationsininterventioneffectivenessacrosspopulationsandsubgroups.Wealsoaimtoconsiderequityinreviewdesignand

implementation,andinvolvementofdiversepanelofexpertsandstakeholders.Forthe

purposesofthisguide,equityisdefinedastheabsenceofunfairandavoidabledifferencesinsafetyriskandoutcomesamongpopulations,regions,andcontexts.

Equityconsiderationinreviewsofglobalsafetyisadevelopingfield,therefore,itisnotmandatoryatthisstage.TheCentrewillexploreandsupportreviewerstomovethe

methodsforward.Someexistingmethodsandstandards,includingthe

PRISMA-Equity

12

ThisdocumentwillbereviewedandupdatedinSeptember2026

extension,the

CochranePROGRESS-Plus,

andthe

PROEDI,

havebeenusedinother

disciplines(suchas

publichealth

)tointegrateequityconsiderationsinevidencereviews.Theseframeworkscanbeusefullyadaptedinreviewsofglobalsafety.ThetextboxbelowprovidesmoreinformationonthePRISMA-Equity,thePROGRESS-Plus,andthePRO-EDIframeworks.

PRISMA-EquityandtheCochranePROGRESS-Plus

ThePRISMA-EquitychecklistisanextensionofthePRISMAchecklist,aimedat

providingguidanceandsupportforreviewerstoidentify,extract,synthesise,andreportevidenceinsystematicreviewswithafocusonequity(Welchetal.,2012).

ThepurposeofthePRISMA-Equitychecklististoimprovecompletenessand

transparencyoftheconductandreportingofsystematicreviewsonequity.Ithelpsreviewerstoidentify,extract,synthesise,andreportevidenceoninterventionsor

programmesthat:

?targetthegeneralpopulation,whereitisimportanttoexplorethedistributionofeffects/impactsacrossdifferentpopulationcharacteristics,suchasthosedefinedbythePROGRESS-PlusorPRO-EDIframeworks;

?focusonat-risk,under-served,ordisadvantagedpopulations;or

?aimtoreducesocialgradientacrosspopulationsubgroups.

ThePRISMA-Equitychecklistcontains27itemsandrecommendstheuseofthe

CochranePROGRESS-Plusframeworktohelpreviewerstolistanddefinedataitemsrelatedtoequity.FurtherinformationaboutthePRISMA-Equityitemscanbefound

here.

PROGRESS-PLUSisanacronymfor:

PROGRESS:

?Placeofresidence;Race/ethnicity/culture/language;Occupation;Gender/sex;

Religion;Education;Socioeconomicstatus;andSocialcapitalPLUS:

?Otherpersonalcharacteristicsassociatedwithinequalities(e.g.age,disability)

?Otherinstanceswhereapersonmaybetemporarilyatadisadvantage(e.g.,work-relatedillhealth)

GlobalSafetyEvidenceCentre/ReviewsandSynthesisMethodsGuide

13

ThisdocumentwillbereviewedandupdatedinSeptember2026

PROEDI(Equity,Diversity,andInclusion)

PROEDIbuildsontheCochranePROGRESS-Plusframeworkandoffersawayfor

reviewerstocollect,reportandinterpretdataoncorecharacteristicsthatcanbeassociatedwithinequalities.Theseincludeage;sex;gender;sexualidentity;race,

ethnicity,andancestry;socio-economicstatus(SES),levelofeducation,disability,location(country(ies)ofdatacollection,setting/context);andotherfactorsthatarerelevanttothereview.

PROEDIprovidesa

template

toguidedataextractionaboutpopulationcharacteristicsinevidencereviews,whichcanhelpreviewerstojudgewhetherthereviewfindings

applyequallytoallthosewhocouldbenefitfromtheinterventionortechnologybeingreviewed.

PROEDIwasoriginallydesignedforreviewsofrandomisedcontrolledtrials;however,thetoolcanbeusefulforreviewsofotherstudydesigns.

ThefollowingtableprovidesanexampleofhowtointegrateequityconsiderationsateachstepofthereviewprocessusingthePRISMA-Equity,PROGRESS-Plus,andthePRO-EDI

frameworks.

Reviewstep

Equityconsideration

Reviewquestionandinclusioncriteria

PICO-C(considercontext)

?Population:consideriftheproblemissimilaracrossall

populations.Definedisadvantagedpopulationsclearly

?Intervention:considerpotentialforinterventiongeneratedinequalities(e.g.,easeofaccess,biasindeliveryofsafetyinterventions,etc.)

?Comparator:considerdifferencesinresourcesacrosspopulationsandregions.

?Outcomes:considerdifferencesacrossPROGRESS-PlusandPRO-EDIcharacteristics

?Context:contextorsettingmayvaryacrossPROGRESS-Plus/PRO-EDIcharacteristicswhichmaycauseinequity

Studydesign:describetherationaleforincludingparticularstudydesigns

14

ThisdocumentwillbereviewedandupdatedinSeptember2026

Reviewstep

Equityconsideration

Searchstrategyandfilters

?Considerwhatdatabases,terms,conceptsandsearchfiltersarerelevanttothereviewquestion(s)

?Considerincludingtermsrelevanttothevulnerableorunderservedpopulationsinquestion

Informationsources

Considerinformationsources(e.g.engineering,occupationalhealthandsafetydatabasesandgreyliteraturesources)thatwouldhelptoaddressthereviewquestion(s)

Dataextraction

?Considerhowoutcomesrelevanttounderserved

populationsareextractedandpresented(e.g.,presentingbothabsoluteandrelativedifferences)

?Extracttheresultsbyage,ethnicity/race,disability,socio-economicstatus,etc.

?Clearlydescribesociodemographiccharacteristicsofincludedstudies.

ConsiderusingthePRO-EDI

dataextractiontemplate

asguide.

Criticalappraisal

Lookfordifferenceswhenappraisingevidence(e.g.,attritionratesamongpopulationgroups,delivery,receiptof,andadherencetointervention)

Datasynthesis

Theapproachshouldbedefinedclearlyinprotocol

?Presentbaselinerisksanddifferentrelativeeffects-useadditionalrowsoraddaseparate‘summaryoffindings’table

?Conductsub-groupanalysistoevaluatewhetherthereareanydifferencesintheintervention’seffectacrossdistinctsub-setofparticipantswithintheincludedstudies,definedbyPROGRESS-PlusandPRO-EDIcharacteristics(e.g.,age,gender,race/ethnicity,etc.)

?Analyseandpresentdataongaps,gradients,andtargetedinterventions

?Discusswhetherinclusioncriteriaaffectgeneralisability

?Discusswhetherthesearchstrategyincludedterms

targetedatthevulnerableorunderservedpopulationsinquestion

Discusstheapplicability,transferability,andexternalvalidityoffindingsforunderservedorvulnerablegroupsofinterest

Reporting

Includeasectiononeachofthe

27-itemsofthePRISMA-Equity

checklist

inreviewreport.

GlobalSafetyEvidenceCentre/ReviewsandSynthesisMethodsGuide

15

ThisdocumentwillbereviewedandupdatedinSeptember2026

Furtherreading

1.WelchVA,PetkovicJ,JullJ,HartlingL,KlassenT,KristjanssonE,PardoPardoJ,

PetticrewM,StottDJ,ThomsonD,UeffingE,WilliamsK,YoungC,TugwellP.Chapter

16:Equityandspecificpopulations[lastupdatedOctober2019].In:HigginsJPT,ThomasJ,ChandlerJ,CumpstonM,LiT,PageMJ,WelchVA(editors).CochraneHandbookforSystematicReviewsofInterventionsversion6.5.Cochrane,2024.Availablefrom

/handbook.

2.WelchV,PetticrewM,TugwellP,MoherD,O'NeillJ,WatersE,etal.PRISMA-Equity

2012extension:reportingguidelinesforsystematicreviewswithafocusonhealthequity.PLoSMed2012;9(10):e1001333.doi:

10.1371/journal.pmed.1001333

3.O'NeillJ,TabishH,WelchV,PetticrewM,PottieK,ClarkeM,EvansT,PardoPardoJ,WatersE,WhiteH,TugwellP.Applyinganequitylenstointerventions:using

PROGRESSensuresconsiderationofsociallystratifyingfactorstoilluminate

inequitiesinhealth.JournalofClinicalEpidemiology.2014,67(1),pg.56-64.doi:

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.08.005

4.PROEDIinterpretationguidance2024.Availableat:

/trial-

diversity/pro-edi/

/trial-diversity/pro-edi/

(Accessed:12th

September2025).

5.JBIManualforEvidencesynthesis.Equityinsystematicreviews,2025.Availableat:

https://jbi-global-

wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL/863633421/3.3.2+Equity+in+qualitative+systemati

c+reviews

(Accessed:12thSeptember2025).

GlobalSafetyEvidenceCentre/ReviewsandSynthesisMethodsGuide

16

ThisdocumentwillbereviewedandupdatedinSeptember2026

3.Reviewingtheevidence

TheCentresupportsarangeofreviewmethodstoanswerdifferentresearchquestionsandpriorities.Regardlessofwhichmethodisused,allourevidencereviewshavethesethingsincommon:

●Seektoanswerrelevantandtimelyresearchquestions,developedincollaborationwithgloba