Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37856135›Full record

ArticleJAMA ophthalmology2023

Diverse Research Teams and Underrepresented Groups in Clinical Studies.

Ashank Bains, Pawarissara Osathanugrah, Nayan Sanjiv, Cedrick Chiu, Marissa G Fiorello, Nicole H Siegel, Crandall E Peeler, Alberto G Distefano, Hyunjoo J Lee, Steven Ness and 7 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
9.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. A quality improvement project to optimize the neonatology research experience for families.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. TheFrontiers in public health · 2025
    Article
  16. Building Up a Biomedical Research Workforce Trial.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

17 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ashank BainsDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Washington, Seattle.
Pawarissara OsathanugrahDepartment of Ophthalmology, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Nayan SanjivDepartment of Ophthalmology, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Cedrick ChiuBoston College, Morrissey College of Arts and Sciences, Boston, Massachusetts.
Marissa G FiorelloDepartment of Ophthalmology, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Nicole H SiegelDepartment of Ophthalmology, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Crandall E PeelerDepartment of Ophthalmology, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Alberto G DistefanoDepartment of Ophthalmology, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Hyunjoo J LeeDepartment of Ophthalmology, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Steven NessDepartment of Ophthalmology, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Manishi A DesaiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Jenna R TitelbaumDepartment of Ophthalmology, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Tony PiraDepartment of Ophthalmology, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Kara C LaMattinaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Stephen P ChristiansenDepartment of Ophthalmology, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Howard J CabralDepartment of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Manju L SubramanianDepartment of Ophthalmology, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Boston University · USBoston Medical Center · USBoston College · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Several ophthalmic diseases disproportionately affect racial and ethnic minority patients, yet most clinical trials struggle to enroll cohorts that are demographically representative of disease burden; some barriers to recruitment include time and transportation, language and cultural differences, and fear and mistrust of research due to historical abuses. Incorporating diversity within the research team has been proposed as a method to increase trust and improve engagement among potential study participants. Objective: To examine how demographic factors of potential research participants and personnel may be associated with patient consent rates to participate in prospective ophthalmic clinical studies. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included patients from an urban, academic hospital who were approached for consent to participate in prospective ophthalmic clinical studies conducted between January 2015 and December 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Multivariable logistic regression assessing associations between patient and research personnel demographics and rates of affirmative consent to participate was used. Results: In total, 1380 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.6 [14.9] years; 50.3% male) who were approached for consent to participate in 10 prospective ophthalmic clinical studies were included. Of prospective patients, 566 (43.5%) were Black; 327 (25.1%), Hispanic or Latino; 373 (28.6%), White; 36 (2.8%), other race and ethnicity; and 78 (5.8%) declined to answer. Black patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.32; 95% CI, 0.24-0.44; P < .001) and Hispanic or Latino patients (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.20-0.47; P < .001) were less likely to consent compared with White patients. Patients with lower socioeconomic status were less likely to consent than patients with higher socioeconomic status (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.33-0.53; P < .001). Concordance between patient and research staff race and ethnicity was associated with increased odds of affirmative consent (OR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.99-3.73; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, patients from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups and those with lower socioeconomic status were less likely to participate in ophthalmic clinical studies. Concordance of race and ethnicity between patients and research staff was associated with improved participant enrollment. These findings underscore the importance of increasing diversity in clinical research teams to improve racial and ethnic representation in clinical studies.

Indexed as

EthnicityMinority GroupsCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID37856135
PMCPMC10587823
OpenAlexW4387765680

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.