Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36936269›Full record

ArticleBMJ medicine2023

Metrics, baseline scores, and a tool to improve sponsor performance on clinical trial diversity: retrospective cross sectional study.

Tanvee Varma, Michelle Mello, Joseph S Ross, Cary Gross, Jennifer Miller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Heterogeneity of platelets and their responses.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

5 authors.

Tanvee VarmaYale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8863-1485
Michelle MelloStanford University Law School, Stanford, CA, USA.
Joseph S RossInternal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Cary GrossYale University School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.
Jennifer MillerInternal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3591-369X

Funding

Leveraging Physician Networks to Improve Care and Outcomes for Low-Income PopulationsR01HL144644 · NHLBI · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI NDUMELE, CHIMA · 2019 to 2021
$1.6M
AHRQ HHS R01 HS022882AHRQ HHS R01 HS025164FDA HHS U01 FD005938NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL144644
6 · The paper itself

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

clinical trialhealthcare disparitieshealth services

Identifiers

PMID36936269
PMCPMC9951369

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.