ArticleSocial problems2022
Gendered Logics of Biomedical Research: Women in U.S. Phase I Clinical Trials.
Article in Social problems, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Participation of Women in Cardiovascular Trials From 2017 to 2023: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2025Pooled it
- A systematic review of real-world evidence on the clinical relevance, characterization, and utility ofJournal of pharmacy & pharmaceutical sciences : a publication of the Canadian Society for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Societe canadienne des sciences pharmaceutiques · 2025Pooled it
- The Role of Physical Exercise in the Prevention of Musculoskeletal Disorders in Manual Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.La Medicina del lavoro · 2024Pooled it
- Vaginal microbiomes and their pertinent social context: a microbial ecological review proffering AMR-STI acquisition and emergence.Biology of sex differences · 2026Review
- A Meta-Epidemiological Analysis of Sex Disparities in Hepatology Clinical Trials.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2026Article
- From discovery to debate: The history of menopausal hormone therapy and its impact on cardiovascular health.Autonomic neuroscience : basic & clinical · 2025Review
- COVID-19 clinical trial participation and awareness in Texas.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Article
- Sex and gender bias in chronic coronary syndromes research: analysis of studies used to inform the 2019 European Society of Cardiology guidelines.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024Article
- Promoting equity in clinical research: The role of social determinants of health.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2024Article
- Sex-specific differences in risk factors, comorbidities, diagnostic challenges, optimal management, and prognostic outcomes of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: A comprehensive literature review.Heart failure reviews · 2024Review
- Ethical Criteria for Improved Human Subject Protections in Phase I Healthy Volunteer Trials.Ethics & human research · 2022Article
- Healthy volunteers in US phase I clinical trials: Sociodemographic characteristics and participation over time.PloS one · 2021Article
- Exclusion of Women from Phase I Trials: Perspectives from Investigators and Research Oversight Officials.Ethics & human researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite the importance of including diverse populations in biomedical research, women remain underrepresented as healthy volunteers in the testing of investigational drugs in Phase I trials. Contributing significantly to this are restrictions that pharmaceutical companies place on the participation of women of so-called childbearing potential. These restrictions have far-reaching effects on biomedical science and the public health of women. Using 191 interviews collected over 3 years, this article explores the experiences of 47 women who navigate restrictions on their participation in U.S. Phase I trials. Women in this context face a number of contradictory criteria when trying to enroll, which can curtail their participation, justify additional surveillance, and deny pregnant women reproductive agency. The pharmaceutical industry's putative protections for hypothetical fetuses exacerbate inequalities and attenuate a thorough investigation of the safety of their drugs for public consumption. We use the framework of "anticipatory motherhood" within a gendered organizations approach to make sense of women's experiences in this context.
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.