Systematic Reviews
Copyright
©The Author(s) 2025. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
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 ], 2023 Chicago, United States Americas Cross-sectional study 216 Children with AD 5-17 years 41.70 58.30 SES Geographic location, health insurance type, family income, parent education level, and household size Jeong and Choi[15 ], 2024 Korea Asia Survey 2048 Children with allergic conditions like atopic dermatitis, asthma, and allergic rhinitis 0 ≤ 5 years No separate data No separate data Household income Household income Landau et al [16 ], 2024 Israel Middle East Cross-sectional study 77525 Children with AD diagnosis (Cases) and pediatric population attending wellness visits (Controls) Cases: < 3 years of age, Controls: < 18 years of age 56.60 43.40 SES Socioeconomic status Tawfik et al [17 ], 2023 East London Europe Cross-sectional study 460 Infants & children, young adults of Bangladeshi origin with atopic eczema 2 months to 30 years old 57.00 43 SES Job/income Andersson et al [18 ], 2023 Greenland Americas Cross-sectional study 839 Pediatric population with AD 0–7 years 49.80 50.20 SES Parental educational background, housing status Kim et al [19 ], 2023 Korea Asia Cross-sectional study 980 Participants with the presence of allergic conditions, asthma/AD Less than or equal to 18 years of age 64.10 35.90 SES Household income Agiwal et al [20 ], 2023 India Asia Prospective, descriptive study 380 Pediatric AD population Up to 15 years of age 56.30 43.70 SES Socio-economic status, residential area Weil et al [21 ], 2022 Israel Middle East Retrospective case-control study 93432 Pediatric AD population Less than 6 months to more than or equal to 18 years of age 47.70 52.30 SES Residential area, socioeconomic status
Table 2 Primary outcome measurement variables[
14 - 21 ]
Primary outcome measurement variables Number of studies (out of 8) Household income/income 4 Residential area/geographical location 3 Socioeconomic status 1 Parental or participant education 2 Occupation 1 Housing characteristics 1 Health Insurance 1
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 ], 2023 Mixed No data No data Positive Jeong and Choi[15 ], 2024 Positive No data No data No data Landau et al [16 ], 2024 Mixed No data No data No data Tawfik et al [17 ], 2023 No No data No data Positive Andersson et al [18 ], 2023 No data Positive Positive No data Kim et al [19 ], 2023 Mixed Positive Positive No data Agiwal et al [20 ], 2023 Mixed No data No data No data Weil et al [21 ], 2022 Mixed No data No data No data
Table 4 Sub-analysis of residential area[
14 - 21 ]
Residential area Number of studies reporting data Key findings Urban 4 51.4% (Reimer-Taschenbrecker A), 63.4% (Landau T), 70.3% (Kim J), 58.9% (Agiwal PS) Suburban 1 48.1% (Reimer-Taschenbrecker A) Rural 4 0.5% (Reimer-Taschenbrecker A), 36.6% (Landau T), 29.7% (Kim J), 41.1% (Agiwal PS) Apartment/attached house 1 82.1% (Andersson AM) House 1 17.8% (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 △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △