ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
Transparency of racial participation reporting in randomized controlled trials of minimally invasive surgical techniques.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEnrolment of racial/ethnic minorities in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has historically been poor, despite efforts at improving access to RCTs. Under-representation of racial/ethnic minorities limits the external validity and generalizability of trials. Our objective was to determine to what extent are published RCTs of minimally invasive surgical techniques reporting the racial composition of their study cohorts and to describe the racial composition of patients enrolled in these trials, where data were available.
methodsEMBASE (OvidSP®), MEDLINE (OvidSP®), and Cochrane (Wiley®) databases were systematically searched from inception to December 22, 2017 to identify all RCTs comparing minimally invasive and classical surgical techniques. The Mann-Kendall trend test was used to evaluate reporting trends over the study period. Predictors of racial reporting were evaluated using logistic regression analyses.
resultsOur search strategy yielded 9,321 references of which 496 RCTs met our inclusion/exclusion criteria. Racial information was reported in 20 (4.03%) studies. There was no significant improvement in racial reporting over the study period (p for trend = 0.31). Of the 17 different patient populations accounting for the 20 RCTs, 14 (82.4%) originated from the USA. Multicenter RCTs had significantly increased likelihood of reporting racial composition of the patient cohort (odds ratio 5.10, p = 0.025). White/Caucasian patients accounted for 84.5% of the pooled patient population, with Black/African American, Asian and Latin/Hispanic patients accounting for 7.9%, 1.2%, and 2.1%, respectively.
conclusionsAmong RCTs assessing minimally invasive surgical techniques over the past 30 years, data on included patients' race is poorly reported. In addition to important efforts to improve access to clinical trials for racial and ethnic minorities, efforts aimed at improving reporting and transparency of surgical RCTs are sorely needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33978852What 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.