ArticleOTO open
Otolaryngology Provider Distribution Disparities in Pennsylvania.
Article in OTO open. 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
Objective: To assess the distribution of otolaryngology providers within Pennsylvania. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: State of Pennsylvania. Methods: Otolaryngologists in Pennsylvania were analyzed based on their associated state Area Deprivation Indexes (ADIs) and Rural-Urban Commuting (RUCA) Codes, as determined by census tract data. Results: Of 563 otolaryngology providers identified in Pennsylvania, 477 (83.7%) had office addresses with available RUCA codes and 446 (79.2%) with associated ADI measures. Providers were predominantly located in urban settings, with 466 (93.5%) reporting a primary clinic address in a metropolitan area (RUCA 1-3) and 25 (5.2%) in a micropolitan area (RUCA 3-6). Notably, only 4 (0.8%) providers had primary clinic addresses in small towns (RUCA 7-9) and 2 (0.4%) in rural areas (RUCA 10). Similarly, 171 (38.3%) of providers were situated in areas with an ADI in the top 2 deciles (1-2), while only 56 (12.6%) had clinic addresses in deciles 9-10 (most deprived areas). Conclusion: Pennsylvania faces disparities in access to otolaryngology providers based on socioeconomic and urban-rural workforce distribution.
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.