Reporting of determinants of health inequities and participant characteristics in randomized controlled trials of systemic lupus erythematosus in Canada: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To report participant characteristics relevant to identifying health inequities in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) randomized controlled trials conducted in Canada. Methods We conducted a scoping review by searching MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (1990 to June 2023), and CENTRAL (inception to June 2023). Eligible studies: used an RCT design; evaluated interventions (pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic) among SLE patients aged ≥18 years; and were conducted in Canada. Data extraction was guided by the Campbell and Cochrane Equity Methods Group’s PROGRESS-Plus framework on 11 factors leading to health inequities (Place of residence; Race, culture, ethnicity, and language; Occupation; Gender and sex; Religion; Education; Socioeconomic status; Social capital; Plus: Personal characteristics associated with discrimination; Features of relationships; and Time-dependent relationships). Results Of 1901 unique records, 6 met the inclusion criteria. Sex and age were the only PROGRESS factors that were reported in all studies. The majority of participants were female (84.4% to 100%), and mean ages of participants ranged from 42 to 52.3 years. Place of residence, race, education, and social capital were reported in three studies. Socioeconomic status was reported in two studies, and occupation was reported in one study. Religion, features of relationships, and time-dependent relationships were not reported in any included studies. Conclusion Limited reporting of determinants of health inequities in RCTs for SLE in Canada suggests the need for reporting standards to support equity, diversity, and inclusion practices in research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.073 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.083 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".