Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38166994›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2024

Strategies for enhancing the representation of women in clinical trials: an evidence map.

Karen M Goldstein, Lindsay Chi Yan Kung, Susan Alton Dailey, Aimee Kroll-Desrosiers, Colleen Burke, Megan Shepherd-Banigan, Rebecca Lumsden, Catherine Sims, Julie Schexnayder, Dhara Patel and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Oral Anticoagulants in Women: What's the Difference? A Narrative Review.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
    Review
  19. 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

13 authors.

Karen M GoldsteinCenter of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, 508 Fulton Street, Durham, NC, 27705, USA. karen.goldstein@duke.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-4419-5869
Lindsay Chi Yan KungHealth Management & Policy, Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego, CA, 92182-4162, USA.
Susan Alton DaileyCenter of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, 508 Fulton Street, Durham, NC, 27705, USA.
Aimee Kroll-DesrosiersVA Central Western Massachusetts Healthcare System, 421 North Main Street, Leeds, MA, 01053, USA.
Colleen BurkeDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, 215 Morris Street, Durham, NC, 27701, USA.
Megan Shepherd-BaniganCenter of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, 508 Fulton Street, Durham, NC, 27705, USA.
Rebecca LumsdenDivision of General Internal Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, 40 Duke Medicine Circle, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.
Catherine SimsCenter of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, 508 Fulton Street, Durham, NC, 27705, USA.
Julie SchexnayderUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham School of Nursing, NB545 1720 2nd, Ave S, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA.
Dhara PatelCenter of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, 508 Fulton Street, Durham, NC, 27705, USA.
Sarah CantrellDuke University Medical Center Library & Archives, Duke University School of Medicine 10 Searle Drive, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.
Kate L SheahanJSI, 2733 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA, 22202, USA.
Jennifer M GierischCenter of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, 508 Fulton Street, Durham, NC, 27705, USA.

Funding

CSP VA N0011HSRD VA CIN 13-410
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEquitable sex- and gender-based representation in clinical trials is an essential step to ensuring evidence-based care for women. While multi-institutional actions have led to significant improvements in the inclusion of women in trials, inequity persists in areas like sex-neutral cancers and cardiovascular disease. We sought to identify strategies described or evaluated to boost the inclusion of women in clinical trials.

methodsWe used evidence mapping methodology to examine the breadth of relevant literature. We developed an a priori protocol and followed reporting guidance from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis where applicable. We searched MEDLINE

resultsWe identified 122 articles describing recruitment and retention strategies for 136 trials (377,595 women). Only one article distinguished between the sex and gender identity of participants, and none defined their use of the terms such as "women" or "female". The majority of articles (95%) described recruitment for only women, and 64% were conducted in the USA. Ninety-two articles (75%) described strategies in the context of sex-specific conditions (e.g., gynecologic diagnosis). The majority of included articles evaluated a behavioral intervention (52%), with 23% evaluating pharmacologic interventions and 4% invasive interventions. The most common trial phase for reported strategies was during outreach to potential participants (116 articles), followed by intervention delivery (76), enrollment (40), outcomes assessment (21), analysis and interpretation (3), and dissemination (4). We describe specific types of strategies within each of these phases.

conclusionsMost of the existing literature describing strategies to improve the inclusion of women draws from trials for sex-specific conditions and is largely related to outreach to potential participants. There is little information about how and if studies have attempted to proportionally increase the inclusion of women in trials with both men and women or those focused on invasive and pharmacologic interventions. Future work in this area should focus on how to increase the participation of women in mixed-sex studies and on those areas with remaining inequities in trial participation.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicPatient SelectionWomenFemaleGender IdentityHumansMaleClinical trialsParticipationRepresentationWomen

Identifiers

PMID38166994
PMCPMC10759390

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.