ReviewCommunications medicine2024
Eliminating gender bias in biomedical research requires fair inclusion of pregnant women and gender diverse people.
Review in Communications medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bridging disciplinary siloes: a scoping review on the inclusion and exclusion of pregnant and lactating populations in clinical research.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Editorial: Bridging the knowledge gap: mental health, substance use disorders, and mortality in women.Frontiers in global women's health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Systematic under-representation of pregnant women and gender diverse pregnant people in clinical research has prevented them from benefitting fairly from biomedical advances. The resulting lack of pharmacological safety and efficacy data leads to medicine discontinuation, sub-optimal dosing, and reliance on repurposed therapies. We identify four roadblocks to fair inclusion. First, investment and research are inhibited by protectionist attitudes among research gatekeepers who view pregnancy as a vulnerable state. Second, exclusion ignores human-specific biological variations affecting medication absorption and impacts on the pregnant body. Third, pregnant populations in low-and middle-income countries face a double disadvantage due to gender and location, despite bearing a disproportionate maternal mortality burden. Fourth, perspectives and experiences of pregnant populations are undervalued in clinical intervention design. We propose five actions to optimize fair inclusion: fostering reciprocal partnerships, prioritizing multi-disciplinary research, awareness-raising of the need for pharmaceutical innovation, conducting regulatory analyses, and promoting responsible inclusion over presumptive exclusion.
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.