SynthesisSystematic reviews2025
Bayesian inference in racial health inequity analyses for noncommunicable diseases: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth inequalities are differences in health status or in the distribution of resources and opportunities between different population groups. Bayesian models are well-suited to address the special features and uncertainties in inequality analyses, making them useful for informing policymaking. This research reviewed the use of Bayesian models in racial health equity studies focused on non-communicable diseases. METHODOLOGY: A systematic review was conducted to assess the applications and utility of Bayesian inference in racial health equity studies for non-communicable diseases (PROSPERO Registry No. CRD42024568708). A total of 2274 articles were identified through electronic databases, and 46 studies met inclusion criteria. All but three articles were from high-income countries, and all were published between 2008 and 2024. We summarized the information qualitatively, and each document included was assessed using the Bennett-Manuel checklist tool.
findingsStudies on cancer and cardiovascular diseases were the most frequent. The most frequently used models were Poisson, spatial, and logistic regressions, with Markov-chain Monte Carlo and Integrated nested Laplace approximations being the dominant sampling strategies. The studies found that Black individuals, followed by those of Hispanic ethnicity, are the racial/ethnic groups most affected by health inequities. Data on other racial groups (e.g., Indigenous populations, people of Asian heritage) was insufficient for drawing definitive conclusions. The main factor contributing to these disparities lies within the health system, particularly in terms of access and quality, which can be understood in the context of each disease.
interpretationThe integration of Bayesian modeling into health equity studies holds promise for developing methodologies that lead to insights and foster meaningful change.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.