Purpose: To explore the characteristics and extent to which the impacts of health interventions on equity in outcomes of interest are considered, and describe the implications of their equity related findings for policy, practice and research in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of interventions published in Korean nursing journals. Methods: We searched ScienceOn and Ovid-MEDLINE to search systematic reviews and meta-analysis published between January 2020 and June 2025. The review team independently selected and assessed their consideration of health equity in systematic review and meta-analysis based on PRGORESS-Plus framework. Results: We included a total of 41 reviews. Concerning PROGRESS-Plus factors, age was reported most frequently (70.7%), followed by gender/sex (41.5%) and place of residence (36.6%). Only 9.8% of the reviews examined differential intervention effects across PROGRESS-Plus factors. Additionally, 19.5% of the reviews considered PROGRESS-Plus factors when discussing the applicability of findings or implications for practice or policy. Conclusion: To provide the best available evidence in clinical practice and policy decision-making through systematic reviews, review authors should assess not only the overall intervention effects for the target population but also the effects among vulnerable groups defined by PROGRESS-Plus factors, as well as the implications for strategies that facilitate intervention implementation.