ReviewBMJ open ophthalmology2023
Sociodemographic disparities in ophthalmological clinical trials.
Review in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adherence to Updated Race and Ethnicity Reporting Guidance in Ophthalmology Journals.JAMA network open · 2025Pooled it
- Inequities in glaucoma research: an analysis of Cochrane systematic reviews and randomized trials.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2025Pooled it
- Factors influencing clinical research participation in ophthalmology: a mixed-methods study in keratoconus.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy features among Filipino eyes with neovascular AMD: application of the Asia Pacific Ocular Smaging Society non-ICGA criteria.International ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Gender and ethnic diversity in randomised clinical trials in age-related macular degeneration and diabetic macular oedema.Eye (London, England) · 2025Review
- A Practical Guide to Evaluating Artificial Intelligence Imaging Models in Scientific Literature.Ophthalmology scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 8 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn ophthalmology, clinical trials (CTs) guide the treatment of diseases such as diabetic retinopathy, myopia, age-related macular degeneration, glaucoma and keratoconus with distinct presentations, pathological characteristics and responses to treatment in minority populations.Reporting gender and race and ethnicity in healthcare studies is currently recommended by National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines to ensure representativeness and generalisability; however, CT results that include this information have been limited in the past 30 years.The objective of this review is to analyse the sociodemographic disparities in ophthalmological phases III and IV CT based on publicly available data.
methodsThis study included phases III and IV complete ophthalmological CT available from clinicaltrials.org, and describes the country distribution, race and ethnicity description and gender, and funding characteristics.
resultsAfter a screening process, we included 654 CTs, with findings that corroborate the previous CT reviews' findings that most ophthalmological participants are white and from high-income countries. A description of race and ethnicity is reported in 37.1% of studies but less frequently included within the most studied ophthalmological specialty area (cornea, retina, glaucoma and cataracts). The incidence of race and ethnicity reporting has improved during the past 7 years. DISCUSSION: Although NIH and FDA promote guidelines to improve generalisability in healthcare studies, the inclusion of race and ethnicity in publications and diverse participants in ophthalmological CT is still limited. Actions from the research community and related stakeholders are necessary to increase representativeness and guarantee generalisability in ophthalmological research results to optimise care and reduce related healthcare disparities.
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.