ReviewOTO open
A Systematic Review of Health Disparities in Chronic Rhinosinusitis in the United States.
Review in OTO open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Geographic Disparities in Evidence Investigating the Use of Biologics in Chronic Rhinosinusitis.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-facialePooled it
- Allergy in the Elderly: A Broad Clinical Spectrum Beyond Atopy.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Literature describing disparities in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) often analyzes race, gender, or socioeconomic status (SES) in isolation. Analyses encompassing a comprehensive range of disparities remain lacking. We conducted a systematic review to provide a detailed characterization of the CRS disparity landscape. Data Sources: A systematic review was conducted in Covidence adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A search of PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, etc. was performed for literature published through September 2024. Review Methods: A total of 690 publications were identified and screened by two authors independently. In total, 26 ultimately met the inclusion criteria. Studies were classified by pertaining health disparity (race, gender, SES, age, and geographic region) and reported outcomes (incidence, severity, and treatment choice). Results: In total, 26 studies on CRS disparities were published from 2012 to 2024. 16 focused on SES, describing that lower SES was associated with reduced treatment adherence, resulting in poorer endoscopic findings and quality of life. 14 studies examined racial/ethnic disparities. Hispanic patients were more symptomatic than non-Hispanic patients, whereas black patients had fewer health visits, leading to worse outcomes. Other studies discussed the impact of gender, age, and/or geographic region (n = 9, 4, 4, respectively). Findings included higher symptom burden among female patients and higher CRS incidence in regions of air pollution. Only three studies proposed solutions to disparities. Conclusion: Most literature on CRS disparities describes the influence of SES and race on disease presentation and progression. Other disparities related to gender, age, and geographic region were identified. Further research should uncover root causes and propose detailed solutions to advance equitable care in CRS.
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.