ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Trends in Women's Leadership of Oncology Clinical Trials.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Gender disparities in academic radiation oncology research: A narrative review.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2027Review
- Article
- Women oncologists across 18 Latin American countries: A multinational survey of professional barriers, leadership, and pay equity.Dialogues in health · 2026Article
- Large language model-based evaluation of the impact of gender in medical research.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Trends in Women's Representation Among Principal Investigators of Clinical Trials in Orthopaedic Sports Surgery.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025Article
- Gender equality in leadership of HIV care cascade clinical trials: A methodological study.HIV medicine · 2025Article
- Gender Disparities in Ischemic Heart Disease Management: Underdiagnosis in Women and Differences in Treatment.Cureus · 2025Review
- Gender impact on safety and efficacy in lenvatinib treated patients with radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (GISEL study).European thyroid journal · 2025Observational
- Global perspectives to enhance strategies for advancing women in healthcare and STEMM leadership.Immunology and cell biology · 2025Review
- Representation of women on National Institutes of Health study sections before and during COVID-19 pandemic.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Article
- Authorship of Italian medical literature on neuroendocrine neoplasms: any gender gap?Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2024Article
- US COVID-19 clinical trial leadership gender disparities.The Lancet. Digital health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It has been widely reported that women are underrepresented in leadership positions within academic medicine. This study aimed to assess trends in women representation as principal investigators (PIs) in oncology clinical trials and to characterize trends in women's leadership in such trials conducted between 1999 and 2019. The gender of 39,240 PIs leading clinical trials was determined using the gender prediction software Genderize.io. In total, 11,516 (27.7%) women served as PIs. Over the past 20 years, an annual increase of 0.65% in women PIs was observed. Analysis by geographic distribution revealed higher women representation among PIs in North America and Europe compared to Asia. Industry-funded trials were associated with lower women PI representation than academic-funded trials (31.4% vs. 18.8%, p<0.001). Also, women PIs were found to be underrepresented in late-phase as compared to early-phase studies (27.9%, 25.7%, 21.6%, and 22.4% in phase I, II, III, and IV, respectively; Cochran-Armitage test for trend, p<0.001). Furthermore, an association was found between the PI's gender and enrolment of female subjects (50% vs. 43% female participants led by women vs men PIs, respectively, p<0.001). Taken together, while the gender gap in women's leadership in oncology trials has been steadily closing, prominent inequalities remain in non-Western countries, advanced study phases, industry-funded trials and appear to be linked to a gender gap in patient accrual. These observations can serve for the development of strategies to increase women's representation and to monitor progress toward gender equality in PIs of cancer clinical trials.
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.