ArticleBMC research notes2026
Ten years later: future directions from our most cited paper on the minority tax.
Article in BMC research notes, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn the last ten years there has been a large body of literature exploring the impact of the minority tax on minoritized groups in medicine. A team of authors including an author of this manuscript (KMC) published an article in 2015 that defines the minority tax. This current article looks to describe the progress made in addressing the minority tax by reviewing scholarly publications over the last nine years, assess the strength of articles published, and identifying where continued efforts are needed to eliminate the minority tax.
methodsFour databases were used to identify publications which cited the 2015 seminal paper on the minority tax. All articles were reviewed for strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT) criteria. All A and B level articles were then categorized into a process phase of the Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control (DMAIC) method.
results482 articles met inclusion criteria for the study, 35.9% of the articles were given an A-level, 33.4% a B-level, and 30.7% were given a C-level. More than 90% of the A and B level articles slot in the measure (n = 82), analyze (n = 108), and improve (n = 116) steps of the DMAIC model. The define category had the lowest number of articles (n = 6) followed by the control step (n = 22).
conclusionsMost publications regarding the minority tax measure the scope, analyze root causes, and suggest interventions. Additional publications are needed of SORT level A and B on how to control the minority tax.
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.