ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2025
Developing a public-facing tool to monitor inclusion of special populations in clinical research.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical trials have provided evidence for determining treatment effectiveness. However, clinical trial participants have been underrepresented by diverse and special population groups (e.g., younger and older adults, different races/ethnicities), contributing to disparities in our understanding of diseases and treatments in all those affected. Addressing these disparities in clinical trial participation would be critical to achieving health equity in the USA and beyond. To assess enrollment inclusivity in clinical research at a large academic medical center in the southeast, we used administrative information to develop a snapshot of clinical research participation by age, sex, race, ethnicity, and rurality that was accessible to the public. We compared research enrollment statistics with relevant geographic benchmarks (county, state, and national) from the 2020 US Census. Comparisons revealed 1) over-participation by females relative to county, state, and national benchmarks; 2) under-representation of Black/African Americans relative to county, but higher relative to state and national, levels; and 3) underrepresentation of Hispanic/Latino and Asian groups. The ISP Snapshot has promoted accountability and transparency in this institution's efforts toward health equity. The process has highlighted the need to update and standardize use of outdated categories (e.g., binary gender, rural status) that limit accurate reporting.
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.