ArticleJournal of racial and ethnic health disparities2025
A Cross-Sectional Study of Sex, Race, and Ethnic Representation in Burn Registered Clinical Trials.
Article in Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe demographic proportions of plastic surgery trials approximating real-world disease have not well been studied. Judicious trial representation is essential in evaluation of treatments across diverse patient populations. Herein, we investigate sex, racial, and ethnic disparities in patient enrollment across burn trials.
methodsCross-sectional analysis of participants enrolled in high-quality, with reduced risk of bias, randomized controlled trials (RCT) on burns registered on clinicaltrials.gov under the query "burn." Completed RCTs reporting at least two demographic groups, employing double masking or greater, and with results accessible through the registry or publications were included. Trial characteristics (sponsor country, site location, initiation year, study phase, masking) and demographic data (sex, race, ethnicity per US reporting guidelines) were collected. The Global Burden of Disease database provided sex-based burn disease burdens. The primary outcome was the population-to-prevalence ratio of enrolled female participants. Secondary outcomes included representation of racial and ethnic populations as related to study blinding, phase, and study/sponsor locations.
resultsOf 546 records, 39 trials met the inclusion criteria (2919 participants). All trials reported sex demographics, with females comprising 37.02% of all participants (PPR = 0.71, 95% CI [0.59, 0.82], likely indicating underrepresentation against their empiric disease burden). Only 7 and 9 trials reported ethnicity and race, respectively, although not comprehensively. Among trials reporting race or ethnicity, Caucasians and Black persons comprised 57.52% and 21.80% of participants, respectively, while only 9.80% had Hispanic/Latino ethnicity. Severe underreporting of race and ethnicity precluded much of secondary significance testing across study variables.
conclusionsFemales are likely underrepresented in high-quality, US-registered burn trials, unreflective of their real-world disease burden. Further, severe underreporting of race and ethnicity was noted. Future trials should enroll diverse demographics and equitable populations for promotion of study generalizability.
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.