ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2024
A roadmap for improving representation in 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 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.
- Data-driven trial design: use of target trial emulation to evaluate eligibility criteria in asthma and COPD.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Global determinants of gynecologic cancer incidence and mortality: A cluster-based analysis with predictive insights.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025Article
- The use of consumer-grade physical activity monitors: Insight into psychosocial determinants and technology acceptance.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2025Article
- Reducing inequalities through greater diversity in clinical trials - As important for medical devices as for drugs and therapeutics.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Clinical trials continue to struggle with recruiting diverse participants that include historically underrepresented and minoritized patients, who are typically patients in non-white racial and ethnic groups and have low income (Medicaid). Enrolling diverse participants will benefit the health sciences by providing more generalizable findings. The Cancer Financial Experience project (CAFÉ) study sought to improve financial distress by providing financial navigation for newly diagnosed cancer patients, and intentionally recruited diverse participants. All diverse participants consented at slightly higher rates than non-diverse participants (21.3 % vs. 20.1 %). Spanish-speaking patients consented at a much higher rate than non-Spanish speakers (36.4 % vs. 20.2 % respectively). Here we discuss how we increased our recruitment of diverse participants. Obtaining diverse participation is achievable and will provide more meaningful findings.
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.