ReviewCirculation2025
Measuring Representativeness in Clinical Trials.
Review in Circulation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interactions between long-acting antiretrovirals and opioids: a call for clinical awareness.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2026Review
- Reach and representativeness within a rural randomized controlled trial designed to improve community health through civic engagement for built environment change in Texas and New York.Wellbeing, space and society · 2026Article
- Racial and ethnic diversity in clinical studies reported to ClinicalTrials.gov, 2009-2024.BMJ open quality · 2026Article
- Emergency consent pathways in acute ischemic stroke trials: determinants, consequences, and stakeholder attitudes-an evidence-mapping study.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Enrollment of Older Patients, Women, and Historically Underrepresented Racial and Ethnic Groups in Pulmonary Embolism Trials: A Systematic Review.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Achieving Representation in Cardiovascular Device Clinical Research: The Role of Regulatory Science.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Combined Targeted Drug Delivery Systems for Mineral Metabolism Disorders in Chronic Kidney Disease: A Narrative Review.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
- Evaluating the Science of Diversity in Clinical Trials: Design and Goals of an American Heart Association Strategic Focused Research Network.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Letter to the editor concerning "assessing the association between degenerative disc disease and spinal mobility" by Schönnagel L, et al. (Eur spine J [2025]: doi: 10.1007/s00586-025-08919-5).European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Representativeness in randomized clinical trials remains a critical concern, affecting the external validity of trial results, equitable access to the risks and benefits of research participation, and public trust in clinical research. Although representative participation by members of groups traditionally underrepresented in clinical trials is just a surrogate for true diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging in clinical trials, it can be quantified, allowing stakeholders to add empirical rigor to diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging efforts. Multiple ways to measure representativeness have been proposed, including the participation-to-prevalence ratio, raw participation proportions or numbers for relevant subgroups, and enrollment fraction for relevant subgroups. These methods have strengths and weaknesses and may be appropriate to report in certain circumstances, depending on why stakeholders seek to assess representativeness. Stakeholders-including regulatory agencies, journal editors, clinical trial investigators, and trial sponsors-may use quantitative measures of representativeness to establish trial enrollment standards, monitor equitable participation in ongoing trials, and condition funding or drug or device approval on achieving specific representativeness targets. However, using quantitative measures of representativeness in this way could have unintended consequences, including researchers "gaming" recruitment strategies to meet target numbers, overlooking nuanced variations within communities, and potentially incentivizing problematic and exploitative recruitment strategies. Although no single method of measuring representativeness offers a comprehensive solution for increasing diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging in all randomized clinical trials, a carefully designed, multifaceted approach to measuring representativeness may provide stakeholders with useful perspectives for measuring progress in increasing the diversity of clinical trial participation. For stakeholders seeking a single number to assess the representativeness of a trial enrolling patients with a disease state with well-delineated demographics, the participation-to-prevalence ratio is ideal; however, for a more nuanced view of representativeness, the combination of enrollment fraction in subgroups of relevance plus a full report of the demographics of patients approached for enrollment may be more appropriate.
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.