ArticleBMJ medicine2023
Metrics, baseline scores, and a tool to improve sponsor performance on clinical trial diversity: retrospective cross sectional study.
Article in BMJ medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Representation of Older Adults and Women in Randomized Trials of Noninvasive Imaging for Chest Pain.Circulation. Cardiovascular imaging · 2025Pooled it
- Diversity in randomized clinical trials for peripheral artery disease: a systematic review.International journal for equity in health · 2024Pooled it
- Strategies for enhancing participation of underrepresented patient populations in cancer clinical trials: learning from "bright spots".BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Representation of Women, Older Adults, and Racial and Ethnic Minoritized Patients in Pivotal Trials for US Food and Drug Administration Novel Oncology Therapeutic Approvals, 2012-2021: Bright Spot Trials and Trends Over Time.JCO oncology practice · 2026Article
- The feasibility of the Community health worker Outreach and Navigation Network for Enhancing representation in Clinical Trials (CONNECT) model: A community-physician engagement approach for increasing representation in clinical trials.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2025Article
- Healthcare disparities, screening, and molecular testing in the changing landscape of non-small cell lung cancer in the United States: a review.Cancer metastasis reviews · 2024Review
- Diversity and Representation Among United States Participants in Amgen Clinical Trials.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2024Article
- Treatment Patterns and Outcomes by Age in Metastatic Urinary Tract Cancer: A Retrospective Tertiary Cancer Center Analysis.Cancers · 2024Article
- Heterogeneity of platelets and their responses.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2024Article
- Disentangling the reasons why older adults do not readily participate in cancer trials: a socio-epidemiological mixed methods approach.Age and ageing · 2024Article
- Harnessing policy to promote inclusive medical product evidence: development of a reference standard and structured audit of clinical trial diversity policies.BMJ medicine · 2024Article
- Quantifying Clinical Trial Diversity in Pivotal Registration Trials of FDA Novel Drug Approvals.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2024Article
- Reporting of Demographics & Subgroup Analyses in Premarketing Studies of FDA Approved High-Risk Cardiovascular Devices, 2014-2022.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Prevalence and proportion by age and sex of chronic health conditions in a large healthcare system.PloS one · 2024Article
- Pivotal Trial Demographic Representation and Clinical Development Times for Oncology Therapeutics.JAMA · 2023Article
- Metrics, baseline scores, and a tool to improve sponsor performance on clinical trial diversity: retrospective cross sectional study.BMJ medicine · 2023Article
- The Representative Studies Rubric: A Tool for Diversity in Clinical Trials.AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To develop a measure for fair inclusion in pivotal trials by assessing transparency and representation of enrolled women, older adults (aged 65 years and older), and racially and ethnically minoritized patients. Design: Retrospective cross sectional study. Population: Sponsors of novel oncology therapeutics that were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration over 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2017. Data sources: Trial data from Drugs@FDA, ClinicalTrials.gov, and corresponding publications; cancer incidence demographics from US Cancer Statistics and the American Cancer Society. Main outcome measures: Transparency measures assess whether trials publicly report participant sex, age, and racial and ethnic identity. Representation measures assess whether trial participant demographics represent more than 80% of the US patient population for studied conditions, calculated by dividing the percentage of study participants in each demographic subgroup by the percentage of the US cancer population with the studied condition per group. Composite fair inclusion measures assess average transparency and representation scores, overall and for each demographic group. Results are reported at the trial, product, and sponsor levels. Results: Between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2017, the FDA approved 59 novel cancer therapeutics, submitted by 25 sponsors (all industry companies) on the basis of 64 pivotal trials. All 25 sponsors (100%) reported participant sex, 10 (40%) reported age, and six (24%) reported race and ethnicity. Although 14 (56%) sponsors had adequate representation of women in trials, only six (24%) adequately represented older adults, and four (16%) adequately represented racially and ethnically minoritized patients (black, Asian, Hispanic or Latinx). On overall fair inclusion, one sponsor scored 100% and the median sponsor score was 81% (interquartile range 75-87%). More than half of sponsors (13 (56%) of 25) fairly included women, 20% (n=5) fairly included older adults, and 4% (n=1) fairly included racially and ethnically minoritized patients in trials. 80% of product had pivotal trials that fairly included women, 24% fairly included older adults, and 5% fairly included racially and ethnically minoritized patients. Conclusions: This novel approach evaluates trials, products, and sponsors on their fair inclusion of demographic groups in research. For oncology trials, substantial room was noted for improved inclusion of older adults and patients who identify as black or Latinx and transparency around the number of participants identifying as Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, American Indian, and Alaska Native. These measures can be used by sponsors, ethics committees, among others, to set and evaluate trial diversity goals to help spur progress toward greater research equity in the US.
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.