Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35756628›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022

Trends in Women's Leadership of Oncology Clinical Trials.

Ithai Waldhorn, Ayelet Dekel, Anna Morozov, Elisa Sardas Alon, Danielle Stave, Noam Ben Tsrooya, Shir Schlosser, Gal Markel, David Bomze, Tomer Meirson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Gender disparities in academic radiation oncology research: A narrative review.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2027
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Large language model-based evaluation of the impact of gender in medical research.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Ithai WaldhornDivision of Oncology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel.
Ayelet DekelMidaat - For Informed Health, Mevaseret Zion, Israel.
Anna MorozovDepartment of Data Science, Eyeviation, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Elisa Sardas AlonThe Israel Society for Gender and Sex Conscious Medicine, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Danielle StaveDepartment of Pediatrics, Dana Dwek Children's Hospital, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Noam Ben TsrooyaOccupational Medicine Department, Clalit Health Services, Netanya, Israel.
Shir SchlosserSackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Gal MarkelSackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
David BomzeSackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Tomer MeirsonDavidoff Cancer Center, Rabin Medical Center-Beilinson Hospital, Petah Tikva, Israel.
Tel Aviv University · ILAlzheimer's Association of Israel · ILClalit Health Services · ILRabin Medical Center · ILRambam Health Care Campus · ILTel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center · IL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

gender gaponcology clinical trialsprincipal investigatorswomen representationwomen’s leadership

Identifiers

PMID35756628
PMCPMC9215172
OpenAlexW4285742743

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.