ReviewDiabetes care2016
Exclusion of Women of Childbearing Potential in Clinical Trials of Type 2 Diabetes Medications: A Review of Protocol-Based Barriers to Enrollment.
Review in Diabetes care, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- When the Heart Hurts the Kidneys: From Flow to Translational Future.Seminars in nephrology · 2025Review
- Improving Representation of Underserved Populations in Cardiovascular Research.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Review
- Eligibility and enrollment of pregnant and breastfeeding women in psychiatry randomized controlled trials.Archives of women's mental health · 2023Review
- Facilitators and barriers of women's participation in HIV clinical research in Switzerland: A qualitative study.HIV medicine · 2022Article
- Researchers' ethical perspective about women participation in research studies in Jordan.Heliyon · 2021Article
- Clinical comparison between trial participants and potentially eligible patients using electronic health record data: A generalizability assessment method.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2021Article
- Machine learning on drug-specific data to predict small molecule teratogenicity.Reproductive toxicology (Elmsford, N.Y.) · 2020Article
- Cultural and Religious Barriers Influencing the Participation of Women in Research: A Study from Jordan.Gender issues · 2020Article
- The moral imperative to approve pregnant women's participation in randomized clinical trials for pregnancy and newborn complications.Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM · 2019Review
- Using Real-World Data to Extrapolate Evidence From Randomized Controlled Trials.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2019Review
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
objectiveWomen of childbearing potential are often excluded from participating in clinical trials owing to concerns about adverse fetal effects of treatment. This study aims to determine the prevalence of fertility-related exclusion criteria in clinical trials of type 2 diabetes medications and to determine whether these criteria are commensurate with drug risk. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsClinicalTrials.gov was queried for trials of type 2 diabetes medications that were phase 2 or 3, were based in the U.S., and enrolled participants 18-40 years old. Six hundred eighty-eight trials met criteria. Information collected about each trial included enrollment, trial length, exclusion and inclusion criteria, trial sponsor, and pregnancy category of drug(s) administered.
resultsMost studies (59%) included one or more fertility-related exclusion criteria, most often excluding current pregnancy (55%) and breast-feeding (44%). Trials of medications with increased fetal risk were not more restrictive: trials of category C drugs (evidence of fetal risks in animals) were less likely to exclude pregnancy compared with trials of category B drugs (no known human or animal fetal risks) (45.6% vs. 69.8%, odds ratio [OR] 0.37 [95% CI 0.20, 0.65], P = 0.0005) or to require contraceptive use (29.9% vs. 57.1%, OR 0.32 [95% CI 0.18, 0.56], P = 0.001).
conclusionsIn clinical trials of type 2 diabetes medications, exclusion criteria affecting women of childbearing potential are often disproportionate to risk to the participant and fetus. These criteria have the potential to impede young women's access to clinical trials and may hinder the acquisition of clinical knowledge critical for improving the care of women with diabetes.
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.