ReviewJournal of the American College of Cardiology2020
Characteristics of Heart Failure Trials Associated With Under-Representation of Women as Lead Authors.
Review in Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Patient-physician sex concordance and outcomes in cardiovascular disease: a systematic review.European heart journal · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Underrepresentation of women in cardiovascular disease clinical Trials-What's in a Name?International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2024Article
- Clinical Trial Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: Roadmap of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network.The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2024Review
- Systematic Review of Women Leading and Participating in Nephrology Randomized Clinical Trials.Kidney international reports · 2024Article
- Review
- Sex Disparities in Cardiovascular Disease.Methodist DeBakey cardiovascular journal · 2024Review
- Strategies for Improving Enrollment of Diverse Populations with a Focus on Lipid-Lowering Clinical Trials.Current cardiology reports · 2023Review
- Gender Disparities in Cardiac Surgery Trials: Leadership, Authorship, and Patient Enrollment.The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2023Review
- Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Disparities in Valvular Heart Failure Management.Heart failure clinics · 2023Review
- Evaluation of gender trends in first authorship in nephrology publications in four major US journals in the last decade.Journal of nephrology · 2023Article
- Remote Patient Monitoring for Patients with Heart Failure: Sex- and Race-based Disparities and Opportunities.Cardiac failure review · 2023Review
- Dear colleagues: enough with the men-only author panels.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2022Article
- A Systematic Review of Sex-Specific Reporting in Heart Failure Clinical Trials: Trial Flow and Results.JACC. Advances · 2022Article
- Global representation of heart failure clinical trial leaders, collaborators, and enrolled participants: a bibliometric review 2000-20.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2022Article
- Improving Enrollment of Underrepresented Racial and Ethnic Populations in Heart Failure Trials: A Call to Action From the Heart Failure Collaboratory.JAMA cardiology · 2022Article
- Gender differences in cardiology-More questions than answers.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Representation of Women as Authors in Pivotal Trials Supporting US Food and Drug Administration Approval of Novel Cardiovascular Drugs.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Why is it important for male cardiologists to enroll more women in cardiovascular trials?American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2022Article
- Representation of women in heart failure clinical trials: Barriers to enrollment and strategies to close the gap.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical trials change practice in cardiology, and leading them requires research training, mentorship, sponsorship, and networking. Women report challenges in obtaining these opportunities.
objectivesThe purpose of this review was to evaluate temporal trends in representation of women as authors in heart failure (HF) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in high-impact medical journals and explore RCT characteristics associated with women as lead authors.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL for HF RCTs published in journals with an impact factor ≥10 between January 1, 2000, and May 7, 2019. We assessed temporal trends in the gender distribution of authors, and used multivariable logistic regression to determine characteristics associated with women as lead authors.
resultsWe identified 10,596 unique articles, of which 403 RCTs met inclusion criteria. Women represented 15.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.2% to 19.6%), 12.9% (95% CI: 9.8% to 16.6%), and 11.4% (95% CI: 8.5% to 14.9%) of lead, senior, and corresponding authors, respectively. The proportion of women authors has not changed over time. Women had lower odds of lead authorship in RCTs that were multicenter (odds ratio [OR]: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.96; p = 0.037), were coordinated in North America (OR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.70; p = 0.011) or Europe (OR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.91; p = 0.039), tested drug interventions (OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.97; p = 0.043), or had men as the senior author (OR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.93; p = 0.043).
conclusionsWomen are under-represented as authors of HF RCTs, with no change in temporal trends. Women had lower odds of lead authorship in RCTs that were multicenter, were coordinated in North America or Europe, tested drug interventions, or had men as senior authors.
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.