ArticleOTO open
An Analysis of the Otolaryngology Workforce in Pennsylvania.
Article 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.
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.
- Accessibility of Otolaryngology Care in Virginia: A Geospatial Workforce Analysis.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2026Article
- Article
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
Objective: This study aims to analyze the distribution of otolaryngologists between urban and rural counties in Pennsylvania. Study Design: Retrospective database. Setting: American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) database and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Database. Methods: The AAO-HNS database (Entnet.org) and the CMS Database were used to identify otolaryngologists, their primary location, and their state of training. The 2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes were used to classify metropolitan (codes 1-3) and nonmetropolitan counties (codes 4-9) and determine county populations. Results: A total of 388 otolaryngologists were identified across 67 Pennsylvania counties (33 metropolitan, 34 nonmetropolitan), 80% of which were male. There were 354 otolaryngologists in metropolitan counties serving 11.2 million people, with an average of 2.4 otolaryngologists per 100,000 people (/100 k). The majority of otolaryngologists (n = 235, 60.6%) are located in counties designated by code 1. There were 34 otolaryngologists in nonmetropolitan counties serving 1.8 million people, with an average of 2.4 otolaryngologists/100 k. Montour County (code 6) is home to a large academic center and accounts for 14/34 otolaryngologists in the nonmetropolitan counties. With the exception of Montour County, the remaining nonmetropolitan counties averaged 1.0 otolaryngologist/100 k. Only 3 metropolitan counties did not have otolaryngologists compared to 19 nonmetropolitan counties without otolaryngologists. Most otolaryngologists received their residency training in Pennsylvania (n = 177). New York (n = 35) and Maryland (n = 24) were the second most common states for training. Conclusion: There is a lack of otolaryngologists in rural counties of Pennsylvania, except in counties home to large academic centers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.