SynthesisJournal of neuro-oncology2024
Ethnicity in neuro-oncology research: How are we doing and how can we do better?
Synthesis in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2024. 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.
- Article
- Response to letter to the Editor: "Ethnicity in neuro-oncology research: how are we doing and how can we do better?"Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Article
- Letter to the editor: Ethnicity in neuro-oncology research: how are we doing and how can we do better?Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Article
- Race and "omic" data in glioma: A systematic review of contemporary research to explore the digital divide.Neuro-oncology practice · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study systematically reviews and meta-analyses the extent of ethnic minority representation in neuro-oncology Phase III and IV clinical trials, explores the effect of ethnicity on outcomes, and identifies predictors for the inclusion of ethnicity data in publications.
methodsAdhering to PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive literature search across multiple databases, on Phase III and IV trials in neuro-oncology that reported on adult and/or paediatric subjects. Through meta-analysis, we synthesized information on overall survival, event-free survival, and the incidence of adverse outcomes across ethnicities.
resultsFrom 448 identified articles, a fraction reported ethnicity data, with an even smaller number providing outcome data stratified by ethnicity. Most study participants were identified as White, underscoring a significant underrepresentation of minorities. Our meta-analysis did not reveal significant outcome differences by ethnicity, which may be attributed to the limited and inadequate reporting of data. Predictors for including ethnicity data were identified, including trials in North America(OR2.39, 95%CI 1.18-5.12, p < 0.02),trials of drugs or biologic agents(OR 5.28, 95%CI 1.43-3.42, p < 0.05),and trials funded by charities(OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.04-5.27, p < 0.05) or pharmaceutical companies(OR 3.98, 95% CI 1.60-10.0, p < 0.005).
conclusionThe underrepresentation of minorities in neuro-oncology clinical trials and the inadequately characterized impact of ethnicity on treatment outcomes highlight a critical need for more inclusive recruitment strategies and improved reporting standards. Change is necessary to ensure trials reflect the diversity of the patient population, which is essential for developing tailored strategies and improving outcomes. Future research should prioritize understanding the role of ethnicity in neuro-oncology to facilitate personalized treatment approaches.
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.