ArticleJAMA network open2021
Reporting of Study Participant Demographic Characteristics and Demographic Representation in Premarketing and Postmarketing Studies of Novel Cancer Therapeutics.
Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Racial and Ethnic Reporting and Representation in US Alzheimer Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2026Pooled it
- Race and Ethnicity Representation in Phase 2/3 Oncology Clinical Trial Publications: A Systematic Review.JAMA health forum · 2024Pooled it
- Understanding Sociodemographic Disparities in Maternal-Fetal Surgery Study Participation.Fetal diagnosis and therapy · 2022Pooled it
- How Do Older People Experience Hospital to Home Discharge? An Overview of Qualitative Reviews.International journal of older people nursing · 2026Review
- Representation of Women, Older Adults, and Racial and Ethnic Minoritized Patients in Pivotal Trials for US Food and Drug Administration Novel Oncology Therapeutic Approvals, 2012-2021: Bright Spot Trials and Trends Over Time.JCO oncology practice · 2026Article
- Measuring representation in clinical trials: Simulations demonstrating how current methods fail in the context of precision medicine.PloS one · 2026Article
- Clinical Research Network: JHCRN Infrastructure and Lessons Learned.Clinical and translational science · 2025Review
- Participation of women in clinical studies of atrial fibrillation in the Northern Netherlands.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2024Article
- Participant Diversity in United States Randomized Controlled Trials of Antibacterials for Staphylococcus aureus Infections, 2000-2021.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024Article
- Comparison of baseline patient characteristics in Italian oncology drug monitoring registries and clinical trials: a real-world cross-sectional study.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024Article
- Trial staff and community member perceptions of barriers and solutions to improving racial and ethnic diversity in clinical trial participation; a mixed method study.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2024Article
- Geographic and Demographic Representation in Industry-Sponsored, US-Based Clinical Trials of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Therapies.The Journal of rheumatology · 2024Article
- Empirical data drift detection experiments on real-world medical imaging data.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Reporting of Demographics & Subgroup Analyses in Premarketing Studies of FDA Approved High-Risk Cardiovascular Devices, 2014-2022.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Enrollment Success, Factors, and Prediction Models in Cancer Trials (2008-2019).JCO oncology practice · 2023Article
- Analysis of Female Participant Representation in Registered Oncology Clinical Trials in the United States from 2008 to 2020.The oncologist · 2023Article
- A community-informed recruitment plan template to increase recruitment of racial and ethnic groups historically excluded and underrepresented in clinical research.Contemporary clinical trials · 2023Review
- Metrics, baseline scores, and a tool to improve sponsor performance on clinical trial diversity: retrospective cross sectional study.BMJ medicine · 2023Article
- Review
- Use of Extrapolation in New Drug Approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration.JAMA network open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Adequate representation of demographic subgroups in premarketing and postmarketing clinical studies is necessary for understanding the safety and efficacy associated with novel cancer therapeutics. Objective: To characterize and compare the reporting of demographic data and the representation of individuals by sex, age, and race in premarketing and postmarketing studies used by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to evaluate novel cancer therapeutics. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, premarketing and postmarketing studies for novel cancer therapeutics approved by the FDA from 2012 through 2016 were identified. Study demographic information was abstracted from publicly available sources, and US cancer population demographic data was abstracted from US Cancer Statistics. Analyses were conducted from February 25 through September 21, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The percentages of trials reporting sex, age, and race/ethnicity were calculated, and participation to prevalence ratios (PPRs) were calculated by dividing the percentage of study participants in each demographic group by the percentage of the US cancer population in each group. PPRs were constructed for premarketing and postmarketing studies and by cancer type. Underrepresentation was defined as PPR less than 0.8. Results: From 2012 through 2016, the FDA approved 45 cancer therapeutics. The study sample included 77 premarketing studies and 56 postmarketing studies. Postmarketing studies, compared with premarketing studies, were less likely to report patient sex (42 studies reporting [75.0%] vs 77 studies reporting [100%]; P < .001) and race (27 studies reporting [48.2%] vs 62 studies reporting [80.5%]; P < .001). Women were adequately represented in premarketing studies (mean [SD] PPR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.90-0.91) and postmarketing studies (mean PPR, 1.00; 95% CI, 1.00-1.01). Although older adults and Black patients were underrepresented in premarketing studies (older adults: mean PPR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.72-0.74; Black patients: mean PPR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.31-0.32), these groups continued to be underrepresented in postmarketing studies (older adults: mean PPR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.75-0.76; Black patients: mean PPR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.21-0.21). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that older adults and Black patients were underrepresented in postmarketing studies of novel cancer therapeutics to a similar degree that they were underrepresented in premarketing studies. These findings suggest that postmarketing studies are not associated with improvements to gaps in demographic representation present at the time of FDA approval.
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.