Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40235622›Full record

ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2025

Reducing inequalities through greater diversity in clinical trials - As important for medical devices as for drugs and therapeutics.

Laurence S J Roope, Jessica Walsh, Maddie Welland, Gabrielle Samuel, Heidi Johansen-Berg, Anna C Nobre, Stuart Clare, Helen Higham, Jon Campbell, Tim Denison and 12 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors.

Laurence S J RoopeHealth Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Jessica WalshWellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, FMRIB, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Maddie WellandWellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, FMRIB, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Gabrielle SamuelWellcome Centre for Human Genetics, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Heidi Johansen-BergNational Institute for Health and Care Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Anna C NobreDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Stuart ClareWellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, FMRIB, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Helen HighamNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Jon CampbellWellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, FMRIB, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Tim DenisonNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Karla L MillerWellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, FMRIB, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Seena FazelNational Institute for Health and Care Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Matthew L CostaOxford Trauma and Emergency Care, Kadoorie Centre, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Andrew FarmerNuffield Department of Primary Health Care Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Marian KnightNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Rachel TaylorNational Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Lorna R HendersonNational Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Angeli VaidNational Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom.
John GeddesNational Institute for Health and Care Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Vasiliki KiparoglouNational Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Helen McShaneNational Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Philip M ClarkeHealth Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In medicine and public health, the randomised controlled trial (RCT) is generally considered the key generator of 'gold standard' evidence. However, basic and clinical research and trials are often unrepresentative of real-world populations. Recruiting insufficiently diverse cohorts of participants in trials (e.g. in terms of socioeconomic status, racial and ethnic background, or sex and gender) may not only overstate the general effectiveness of a technology; it may also actively increase health inequalities. We highlight some general issues in this domain, before discussing several specific illustrative examples in the context of medical devices. High quality evidence on factors that would improve trial recruitment is extremely limited. There is a clear need for research on candidate strategies for improving recruitment of under-represented groups in RCTs. These could include, for example, offering various forms of financial incentives; non-monetary incentives, such as preferential access to the technologies that are being tested if they are found to be effective; and various types of informational messages and nudges; as well as involvement of community partners and champions in the recruitment process. Ideally, recruitment practices should ultimately be based on evidence generated from RCTs. Studies Within a Trial (SWAT), where randomised experiments are built into the actual recruitment processes in RCTs, are an ideal way to gain this evidence. SWAT studies are seeing an increase in traction, as indicated by funding streams in bodies such as the UK-based NIHR. Making greater funding available for studies of this kind is needed to improve the evidence base on how best to improve diversity in trial recruitment.

Indexed as

DiversityEfficient trial designInequalityLevelling upTrial recruitmentUnderserved

Identifiers

PMID40235622
PMCPMC11999327

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.