Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20160159›Full record

ReviewCirculation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes2010

Representation of women in randomized clinical trials of cardiovascular disease prevention.

Chiara Melloni, Jeffrey S Berger, Tracy Y Wang, Funda Gunes, Amanda Stebbins, Karen S Pieper, Rowena J Dolor, Pamela S Douglas, Daniel B Mark, L Kristin Newby

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 174 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
174citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
29.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

174 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 458 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

114 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Chiara MelloniDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27705, USA. mello004@mc.duke.edu
Jeffrey S Berger
Tracy Y Wang
Funda Gunes
Amanda Stebbins
Karen S Pieper
Rowena J Dolor
Pamela S Douglas
Daniel B Mark
L Kristin Newby
Duke University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 2007 American Heart Association guidelines for cardiovascular disease prevention in women drew heavily on results from randomized clinical trials; however, representation of women in trials of cardiovascular disease prevention has not been systematically assessed. METHODS AND

resultsWe abstracted 156 randomized clinical trials cited by the 2007 women's prevention guidelines to determine female representation over time and by clinical indication, prevention type, location of trial conduct, and funding source. Both women and men were represented in 135 of 156 (86.5%) trials; 20 trials enrolled only men; 1 enrolled only women. Among all trials, the proportion of women increased significantly over time, from 9% in 1970 to 41% in 2006. Considering only trials that enrolled both women and men, female enrollment was 18% in 1970 and increased to 34% in 2006. Female representation was higher in international versus United States-only trials (32.7% versus 26.7%) and primary versus secondary prevention trials (42.6% versus 26.6%). Female enrollment was comparable in government/foundation-funded versus industry-funded trials (31.9% versus 31.5%). Representation of women was highest among trials in hypertension (44%), diabetes (40%), and stroke (38%) and lowest for heart failure (29%), coronary artery disease (25%), and hyperlipidemia (28%). By contrast, women accounted for 53% of all individuals with hypertension, 50% with diabetes, 51% with heart failure, 49% with hyperlipidemia, and 46% with coronary artery disease. Sex-specific results were discussed in only 31% of primary trial publications.

conclusionsEnrollment of women in randomized clinical trials has increased over time but remains low relative to their overall representation in disease populations. Efforts are needed to reach a level of representation that is adequate to ensure evidence-based sex-specific recommendations.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionResearch SubjectsWomen's HealthWomen's Health ServicesAge FactorsAmerican Heart AssociationCardiovascular DiseasesDrug IndustryEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleFinancing, GovernmentHealth Status DisparitiesHumansMalePractice Guidelines as TopicPrimary Prevention

Identifiers

PMID20160159
OpenAlexW2139998668

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.