ArticleOphthalmology science
Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Diversity in United States Ophthalmology Clinical Trials.
Article in Ophthalmology science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Incidence and baseline predictors of discontinuation in DRCRnet studies.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Improving representativeness in trial recruitment: A data-driven approach.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2026Article
- Racial disparities in ophthalmology clinical trials: barriers to participation and potential solutions.Eye (London, England) · 2026Review
- An Examination of Demographic Involvement in Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery and Cataract Surgery Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate the representation of various gender, racial, and ethnic groups in ophthalmology clinical trials conducted in the United States (US) between 1997 and 2022. Design: Retrospective cross-sectional study. Participants: We included all participants in completed phase II/III, III, and IV ophthalmology clinical trials reported on the ClincialTrials.gov database. Methods: The proportional enrollment of each racial/ethnic and gender group in the clinical trials was calculated and compared with the US population. We also investigated the impact of various clinical trial features on the rate of reporting demographic information and enrollment of minorities. Main Outcome Measures: Proportional enrollment of each gender and race/ethnicity group compared with the US Census. Results: Of the total clinical trials included in the study, less than half (43.6%) provided information on the racial or ethnic backgrounds of their participants. The majority of the enrollees in trials were female (median: 57.5%, interquartile range [IQR]: 47.2%-65.8%). Among the trials that reported race and/or ethnicity data, White populations were overrepresented (median: 76.6%, IQR: 69.0%-84.0%, Conclusions: Our findings highlight the need for increased efforts to promote diversity and inclusivity in ophthalmology clinical trials. Ensuring equitable inclusion of different gender, racial, and ethnic groups in the trials is essential for minimizing disparities and producing unbiased scientific findings generalizable to the entire population. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.