Hierarchical models for international comparisons:Smoking, Disability, and Social Inequality in 21 European Countries

Background: International comparisons of social inequalities in health outcomes and behaviors are challenging. Due to the level of disaggregation often required, data can be sparse and methods to make adequately powered comparisons are lacking. We aimed to illustrate the value of a hierarchical Bayesian approach that partially pools country-level estimates, reducing the influence of sampling variation and increasing the stability of estimates. We also illustrate a new way of simultaneously displaying the uncertainty of both relative and absolute inequality estimates. Methods: We used the 2014 European Social Survey to estimate smoking prevalence, absolute, and relative inequalities for men and women with and without disabilities in 21 European countries. We simultaneously display smoking prevalence for people without disabilities (x-axis), absolute (y-axis), and relative inequalities (contour lines), capturing the uncertainty of these estimates by plotting a 2-D normal approximation of the posterior distribution from the full probability (Bayesian) analysis. Results: Our study confirms that across Europe smoking prevalence is generally higher for people with disabilities than for those without. Our model shifts more extreme prevalence estimates that are based on fewer observations, toward the European mean. Conclusions: We demonstrate the utility of partial pooling to make adequately powered estimates of inequality, allowing estimates from countries with smaller sample sizes to benefit from the increased precision of the European average. Including uncertainty on our inequality plot provides a useful tool for evaluating both the geographical patterns of variation in, and strength of evidence for, differences in social inequalities in health

Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions.

IntroductionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. It is now apparent that some published RCTs contain false data and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs that have been conducted on a given topic. While it is usual to assess methodological features of the RCTs in the process of undertaking a systematic review, it is not usual to consider whether the RCTs contain false data. Studies containing false data therefore go unnoticed and contribute to systematic review conclusions. The INveStigating ProblEmatic Clinical Trials in Systematic Reviews (INSPECT-SR) project will develop a tool to assess the trustworthiness of RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare-related interventions.Methods and analysisThe INSPECT-SR tool will be developed using expert consensus in combination with empirical evidence, over five stages: (1) a survey of experts to assemble a comprehensive list of checks for detecting problematic RCTs, (2) an evaluation of the feasibility and impact of applying the checks to systematic reviews, (3) a Delphi survey to determine which of the checks are supported by expert consensus, culminating in, (4) a consensus meeting to select checks to be included in a draft tool and to determine its format and (5) prospective testing of the draft tool in the production of new health systematic reviews, to allow refinement based on user feedback. We anticipate that the INSPECT-SR tool will help researchers to identify problematic studies and will help patients by protecting them from the influence of false data on their healthcare.Ethics and disseminationThe University of Manchester ethics decision tool was used, and this returned the result that ethical approval was not required for this project (30 September 2022), which incorporates secondary research and surveys of professionals about subjects relating to their expertise. Informed consent will be obtained from all survey participants. All results will be published as open-access articles. The final tool will be made freely available