ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2024
Racial and ethnic diversity in global neuroscience clinical trials.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review and meta synthesis of barriers and facilitators to Black women's participation in healthcare research.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Pooled it
- Quantifying Sample Representation in Global Pharmacogenomic Studies of Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review.Clinical and translational science · 2025Pooled it
- Two Years of Ocrelizumab Treatment in Black and Hispanic People with Multiple Sclerosis in CHIMES: A Single-Arm Clinical Trial.Annals of neurology · 2026Trial
- Measuring the added benefits of decentralized trial elements (SHASTA): impact on enrollment, demographics, and data completeness through a single sponsor.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Fostering inclusive participation in non-invasive neurotechnology research: a community-based study with an underrepresented population.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- Barriers to health equity in the United States of America: can they be overcome?International journal for equity in health · 2025Review
- Achieving Inclusion in Pharmacological Clinical Trials for Alzheimer's Disease.Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · 2025Review
- Might culture impact the assessment of handedness in Black participants in neuroscience research?Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Article
- Digital adaptation of odor identification test: Current knowledge, gaps, and initial insights from a DAC global cohort.Journal of Alzheimer's disease reportsArticle
- What is older adults' understanding of Alzheimer's disease research registries? Findings from 20 focus group studies.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite efforts to increase diversity in neuroscience trials, racial and ethnic minority groups remain underrepresented. Disparities in clinical trial participation could reflect unequal opportunities to participate and may contribute to decreased generalizability of findings and failure to identify important differences in efficacy and safety outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the F. Hoffmann-La Roche database for global, multicenter, neuroscience clinical trials from February 2016 to February 2021 and summarized and stratified race and ethnicity distributions by clinical trial therapeutic area and by country. These data were then compared to national population data for each study's targeted age group (available for studies conducted in the US, Canada, and the UK). The underrepresentation or overrepresentation of each racial and ethnic group was summarized. Results: The analysis population included 8015 participants from 47 countries. Globally, 85.6 % of participants were White, 7.1 % were Asian, 1.6 % were Black, 1.3 % were American Indian or Alaska Native, less than 0.1 % were Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 0.7 % were of multiple races, and 3.6 % were of other/unknown race. White individuals predominated in all but one trial. Black individuals were underrepresented in all trials but one. Asian individuals were overrepresented in approximately 20 % of trials. In the US, 7.3 % of participants were of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity vs 16.4 % of the US population. Conclusion: The findings and learnings from this summary and analysis demonstrate the need for continued awareness and new approaches in designing studies that reflect population diversity.
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.