Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35157053›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2022

Comparison of Racial, Ethnic, and Geographic Location Diversity of Participants Enrolled in Clinic-Based vs 2 Remote COVID-19 Clinical Trials.

Jenell Stewart, Meighan L Krows, Torin T Schaafsma, Kate B Heller, Elizabeth R Brown, Jim Boonyaratanakornkit, Clare E Brown, Hannah Leingang, Caroline Liou, Anna Bershteyn and 14 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2022. 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 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

24 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Jenell StewartDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle.
Meighan L KrowsDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle.
Torin T SchaafsmaDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle.
Kate B HellerDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle.
Elizabeth R BrownDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle.
Jim BoonyaratanakornkitDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle.
Clare E BrownDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle.
Hannah LeingangDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle.
Caroline LiouDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle.
Anna BershteynDepartment of Population Health, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York.
Mark D SchwartzDepartment of Population Health, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York.
Vaidehi AgrawalCenter for Vaccine Development and Global Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore.
DeAnna Friedman-KlabanoffCenter for Vaccine Development and Global Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore.
Stephen EustacePRA Health Sciences, Digital Health Engagement, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Helen C Stankiewicz KaritaDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle.
Michael K Paasche-OrlowDepartment of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Patricia KissingerDepartment of Epidemiology, Tulane School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Sybil G HosekDepartment of Psychiatry, John H. Stroger Jr Hospital of Cook County, Chicago, Illinois.
Helen Y ChuDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle.
Connie CelumDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle.
Jared M BaetenDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle.
Anna WaldDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle.
Christine JohnstonDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle.
Ruanne V BarnabasDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle.
University of Washington · USNew York University · USUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · USBoston University · USFred Hutch Cancer Center · USJohn H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital of Cook County · USPRA Health Sciences · USTulane University · US

Funding

HOST DEFENSE TRAINING IN ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASEST32AI007044 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI DAVID Neal FREDRICKS · 1985 to 2026
$14.6M
NIAID NIH HHS T32 AI007044
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Racial and ethnic diversity among study participants is associated with improved generalizability of clinical trial results and may address inequities in evidence that informs public health strategies. Novel strategies are needed for equitable access and recruitment of diverse clinical trial populations. Objective: To investigate demographic and geographical location data for participants in 2 remote COVID-19 clinical trials with online recruitment and compare with those of a contemporaneous clinic-based COVID-19 study. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted using data from 3 completed, prospective randomized clinical trials conducted at the same time: 2 remotely conducted studies (the Early Treatment Study and Hydroxychloroquine COVID-19 Postexposure Prophylaxis [PEP] Study) and 1 clinic-based study of convalescent plasma (the Expanded Access to Convalescent Plasma for the Treatment of Patients With COVID-19 study). Data were collected from March to August 2020 with 1 to 28 days of participant follow-up. All studies had clinical sites in Seattle, Washington; the 2 remote trials also had collaborating sites in New York, New York; Syracuse, New York; Baltimore, Maryland; Boston, Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Los Angeles, California. Two remote trials with inclusive social media strategies enrolled 929 participants with recent SARS-CoV-2 exposure (Hydroxychloroquine COVID-19 PEP Trial) and 231 participants with COVID-19 infection (Early Treatment Study); the clinic-based Expanded Access to Convalescent Plasma for the Treatment of Patients With COVID-19 study enrolled 250 participants with recent COVID-19 infection. Data were analyzed from April to August 2021. Interventions: Remote trials used inclusive social media strategies and clinician referral for recruitment and telehealth, courier deliveries, and self-collected nasal swabs for remotely conducted study visits. For the clinic-based study, participants were recruited via clinician referral and attended in-person visits. Main Outcomes and Measures: Google Analytics data were used to measure online participant engagement and recruitment. Participant demographics and geographical location data from remote trials were pooled and compared with those of the clinic-based study. Statistical comparison of demographic data was limited to participants with COVID infections (ie, those in the remotely conducted Early Treatment Study vs those in the clinic-based study) to improve accuracy of comparison given that the Hydroxychloroquine COVID-19 PEP Trial enrolled participants with COVID-19 exposures and thus had different enrollment criteria. Results: A total of 1410 participants were included. Among 1160 participants in remote trials and 250 participants in the clinic-based trial, the mean (range) age of participants was 39 (18-80) years vs 50 (19-79) years and 676 individuals (58.3%) vs 131 individuals (52.4%) reported female sex. The Early Treatment Study with inclusive social media strategies enrolled 231 participants in 41 US states with increased rates of racial, ethnic, and geographic diversity compared with participants in the clinic-based study. Among 228 participants in the remotely conducted Early Treatment Study with race data vs participants in the clinic-based study, 39 individuals (17.1%) vs 1 individual (0.4%) identified as Alaska Native or American Indian, 11 individuals (4.8%) vs 22 individuals (8.8%) identified as Asian, 26 individuals (11.4%) vs 4 individuals (1.6%) identified as Black, 3 individuals (1.3%) vs 1 individual identified as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 117 individuals (51.3%) vs 214 individuals (85.6%) identified as White, and 32 individuals (14.0%) vs 8 individuals (3.2%) identified as other race (P < .001). Among 230 individuals in the Early Treatment Study vs 236 individuals in the clinic-based trial with ethnicity data, 71 individuals (30.9%) vs 11 individuals (4.7%) identified as Hispanic or Latinx (P<.001). There were 29 individuals in the Early Treatment Study with nonurban residences (ie, rural, small town, or peri-urban; 12.6%) vs 6 of 248 individuals in the clinic-based trial with residence data (2.4%) (P < .001). In remote trial online recruitment, the highest engagement was with advertisements on social media platforms; among 125 147 unique users with age demographics who clicked on online recruitment advertisements, 84 188 individuals (67.3%) engaged via Facebook. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that remote clinical trials with online advertising may be considered as a strategy to improve diversity among clinical trial participants.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAdultCohort StudiesCOVID-19FemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPandemicsSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID35157053
PMCPMC8844998
OpenAlexW4212937795

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.