Systematic Reviews
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Meta-Anal. Jun 18, 2025; 13(2): 105511
Published online Jun 18, 2025. doi: 10.13105/wjma.v13.i2.105511
Table 1 Study summary characteristics[14-21]
Ref.
Country
Geographical zone
Study type
Sample size
Patient population
Age group
Males, %
Females, %
Exposure
Primary outcome measurement
Reimer-Taschenbrecker et al[14], 2023Chicago, United StatesAmericasCross-sectional study216Children with AD5-17 years41.7058.30SESGeographic location, health insurance type, family income, parent education level, and household size
Jeong and Choi[15], 2024KoreaAsiaSurvey2048Children with allergic conditions like atopic dermatitis, asthma, and allergic rhinitis0 ≤ 5 yearsNo separate dataNo separate dataHousehold incomeHousehold income
Landau et al[16], 2024IsraelMiddle EastCross-sectional study77525Children with AD diagnosis (Cases) and pediatric population attending wellness visits (Controls)Cases: < 3 years of age, Controls: < 18 years of age56.6043.40SESSocioeconomic status
Tawfik et al[17], 2023East LondonEuropeCross-sectional study460Infants & children, young adults of Bangladeshi origin with atopic eczema2 months to 30 years old57.0043SESJob/income
Andersson et al[18], 2023GreenlandAmericasCross-sectional study839Pediatric population with AD0–7 years49.8050.20SESParental educational background, housing status
Kim et al[19], 2023KoreaAsiaCross-sectional study980Participants with the presence of allergic conditions, asthma/ADLess than or equal to 18 years of age64.1035.90SESHousehold income
Agiwal et al[20], 2023IndiaAsiaProspective, descriptive study380Pediatric AD populationUp to 15 years of age56.3043.70SESSocio-economic status, residential area
Weil et al[21], 2022IsraelMiddle EastRetrospective case-control study93432Pediatric AD populationLess than 6 months to more than or equal to 18 years of age47.7052.30SESResidential area, socioeconomic status
Table 2 Primary outcome measurement variables[14-21]
Primary outcome measurement variables
Number of studies (out of 8)
Household income/income4
Residential area/geographical location3
Socioeconomic status1
Parental or participant education2
Occupation1
Housing characteristics1
Health Insurance1
Table 3 Association between atopic dermatitis and socioeconomic status, and sub-analysis between atopic dermatitis and parental education[14-21]
Ref.
AD association with SES
Maternal education association with AD
Paternal education association with AD
Parental education association with AD
Reimer-Taschenbrecker et al[14], 2023MixedNo dataNo dataPositive
Jeong and Choi[15], 2024PositiveNo dataNo dataNo data
Landau et al[16], 2024MixedNo dataNo dataNo data
Tawfik et al[17], 2023NoNo dataNo dataPositive
Andersson et al[18], 2023No dataPositivePositiveNo data
Kim et al[19], 2023MixedPositivePositiveNo data
Agiwal et al[20], 2023MixedNo dataNo dataNo data
Weil et al[21], 2022MixedNo dataNo dataNo data
Table 4 Sub-analysis of residential area[14-21]
Residential area
Number of studies reporting data
Key findings
Urban451.4% (Reimer-Taschenbrecker A), 63.4% (Landau T), 70.3% (Kim J), 58.9% (Agiwal PS)
Suburban148.1% (Reimer-Taschenbrecker A)
Rural40.5% (Reimer-Taschenbrecker A), 36.6% (Landau T), 29.7% (Kim J), 41.1% (Agiwal PS)
Apartment/attached house182.1% (Andersson AM)
House117.8% (Andersson AM)
Table 5 Risk of bias[14-21]
Criteria
Reimer-Taschenbrecker et al[14]
Jeong and Choi[15]
Landau et al[16]
Tawfik et al[17]
Andersson et al[18]
Kim et al[19]
Agiwal et al[20]
Weil et al[21]
Did the study address a clearly focused issue?
Was the cohort recruited in an acceptable way?
Was the exposure accurately measured to minimize bias?
Was the outcome accurately measured to minimize bias?
Have the authors identified all important confounding factors?
Have they taken account of confounding factors in the design/analysis?
Was the follow-up of subjects complete enough?××××××
Was the follow-up of subjects long enough?××××××
What are the results of this study?
How precise are the results?
Do you believe the results?
Can the results be applied to the local population?
Do the results fit with other available evidence?
What are the implications of this study for practice?
Positive/methodologically sound
Negative/relatively poor methodology××××××××
Unknowns