ArticleNeurology. Clinical practice2025
Prevalence of Neurologic Disease Among Those in Same-Sex Relationships: Evidence from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.
Article in Neurology. Clinical practice, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Prior research has shown several health disparities affecting sexual minority people. Research on the neurologic health of sexual minority people has been limited. Our objective was to characterize the prevalence of neurologic disease and utilization of a neurologist among a population of sexual minority people. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of sexual minority people, using people in same-sex relationships as a proxy for sexual minority status, from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) from 2016 to 2020. The MEPS is a government-run survey that uses complex sampling to obtain a nationally representative sample. Our primary outcome was a diagnosis of any neurologic disease. We also completed stratified analyses by sex, race, and ethnicity. Our secondary outcome was visit to a neurologist within the past year. Logistic regression was used to compare the odds of both outcomes in those in same-sex relationships and those in different-sex relationships. Results: Among 153,313 MEPS participants, there were 61,645 (40.2%) participants in relationships who were included in our sample. Of those, 822 (1.33%) participants were in same-sex relationships. Participants were, on average, aged 51 years (median 50 years, IQR 38-63); nearly 50% reported female sex and mostly non-Hispanic White (67.81%). Among those in same-sex relationships, 22.7% reported a neurologic diagnosis compared with 18.1% of those in different-sex relationships (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.04-1.71). This difference was maintained with adjustment for age, sex, education, and insurance (OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.15-1.91). There was no significant difference in visit to a neurologist (adjusted OR 1.38; 95% CI 0.91-2.10). Discussion: In this nationally representative sample, neurologic disease was more prevalent among those in same-sex relationships compared with those in different-sex relationships. Limited sample size and absent measurements of minority stress limited the etiologic search for factors driving this disparity. There was no significant difference in visit to a neurologist, and both groups reported their overall health as being similar. There is a need for more routine measurement of sexual orientation in neurologic research. This will allow us to detail differences in neurologic disease risk factors, prevalence, and outcomes. The end goal is the identification of opportunities for intervention and advancement of neurologic health equity.
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.