ArticleEye (London, England)2025
Enrolment characteristics in age-related macular degeneration clinical trials: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
BACKGROUND/
objectivesTo investigate demographic enrolment characteristics in age-related macular degeneration (AMD) trials. SUBJECTS/
methodsClinicaltrials.gov was searched with "age-related macular degeneration" to identify RCTs with double, triple, or quadruple masking. Trial (e.g., study location, phase, masking, trial initiation year, and sponsor origin) and patient demographic data were collected. Sex-based AMD disease burdens were retrieved from the Global Burden of Disease database to calculate pooled female population-to-prevalence ratios (PPRs). Equitable trial enrolment was defined as PPR between 0.8-1.2. Demographic proportions were evaluated across trial characteristics using the Kruskal-Wallis test (alpha = 0.05) followed by post hoc comparisons. Secondary outcomes included absolute number of enrolled female, racial, and ethnic groups, and the association of trial characteristics with these demographics.
resultsWe included 106 trials (77,939 patients; 46.3% female), spanning 1990-2020. The pooled female PRR was 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.82, 0.94). PPR values were inconclusive studies with quadruple blinding; phase I, III, IV, or not applicable status; foreign (non-US) site; US-only and foreign-only sponsor; and an initiation year before 2010. There was no significant difference in PPR between sublevels of analysed trial characteristics. Of the 74 (69.8%) trials that adequately detailed race, White participants comprised the largest group (N = 57,917; 82% of total participants). Thirty-seven (34.9%) trials adequately detailed ethnicity. The absolute enrolment of race and ethnic groups did not generally exhibit significant difference between sublevels of analysed trial characteristics.
conclusionsFemale enrolment was commensurate to their disease burden across all trial characteristics. Race and ethnicity were under-reported. Future trials should prioritise equitable study enrolment strategies.
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.