Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39175919›Full record

ArticleBMJ medicine2024

Harnessing policy to promote inclusive medical product evidence: development of a reference standard and structured audit of clinical trial diversity policies.

Jennifer Miller, William Pelletiers, Sakinah Suttiratana, Michael Ofosu Mensah, Jason Schwartz, Reshma Ramachandran, Cary Gross, Joseph S Ross

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors.

Jennifer MillerGeneral Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3591-369X
William PelletiersGeneral Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Sakinah SuttiratanaGeneral Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Michael Ofosu MensahYale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3129-2718
Jason SchwartzYale University School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.
Reshma RamachandranGeneral Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3845-3606
Cary GrossGeneral Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Joseph S RossGeneral Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9218-3320

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

abstractObjective: To develop a reference standard based on US Food and Drug Administration and stakeholder guidance for pharmaceutical companies' policies on diversity in clinical trials and to assess these policies. Design: Development of a reference standard and structured audit for clinical trial diversity policies. Setting: 50 pharmaceutical companies selected from the top 500 by their market capitalizations in 2021 (the 25 largest companies and 25 non-large companies, randomly selected from the remaining 475 companies). Population: Data from pharmaceutical company websites and annual reports. Policy guidance from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations, Biotechnology Industry Organization, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and World Health Organization, up to 15 May 2023. Main outcome measures: Multicomponent measure based on distinct themes derived from FDA and stakeholder guidance. Results: Reviewing FDA and stakeholder guidance identified 14 distinct themes recommended for improving diversity in clinical trials, which were built into a reference standard: (1) enrollment targets that reflect the prevalence of targeted conditions in populations, (2) broad eligibility criteria for trials, (3) diversity in the workforce, (4) identification and remedy of barriers to trial recruitment and retention, (5) incorporation of patient input into trial design, (6) health literacy, (7) multidimensional approaches to diversity, (8) sites with diverse providers and patient populations, (9) data collection after product approval, (10) diverse enrollment in every country where trials are conducted, (11) diverse enrollment should be a focus for all phases of clinical trials, not just later stage or pivotal trials, (12) varied trial design, (13) expanded access, and (14) public reporting of the personal characteristics of participants in trials. Applying this reference standard, 48% (24/50) of companies had no public policy on diversity in clinical trials; among those with policies, content varied widely. Large companies were more likely to have a public policy than non-large companies (21/25, 84% Conclusions: The findings of the study showed that many pharmaceutical companies did not have public policies on diversity in clinical trials, although policies were more common in large than non-large companies. Policies that were publicly available varied widely and lacked important commitments recommended by stakeholder guidance. The results of the study suggest that corporate policies can be better leveraged to promote representation and fair inclusion in research, and implementation of FDA and stakeholder guidance.

Indexed as

BiotechnologyChange managementClinical auditClinical governanceClinical trialPublic health

Identifiers

PMID39175919
PMCPMC11340651

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.