ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2025
Reducing inequalities through greater diversity in clinical trials - As important for medical devices as for drugs and therapeutics.
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.
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.
- Global inequities in the adoption of innovative clinical trial designs: a cross-sectional analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov.BMJ open · 2026Observational
- Development and Validation of Echocardiography Artificial Intelligence Models: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.