ArticleHIV medicine2025
Gender equality in leadership of HIV care cascade clinical trials: A methodological study.
Article in HIV medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Gender equality in leadership of HIV care cascade clinical trials: A methodological study.HIV medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesEquitable representation in research leadership is essential across all areas of medical science. In the context of HIV-where women are disproportionately affected-examining gender distribution in the leadership of HIV trials is essential to assess progress towards equity and identify persisting barriers.
methodsWe conducted a methodological study of trials from the CASCADE database, which evaluates interventions to improve the HIV care cascade. We extracted first and last authors' names and used Genderize.io to determine their gender, classifying authors as 'women' if the probability was 60% or greater. The primary outcome was the proportion of trials with women in leadership (first or last author), with secondary outcomes examining the proportions of trials with women as: first authors, last authors and in both roles. We also assessed associations with country income level, focus on women participants, study setting, pragmatism and team size.
resultsGender for both authorship roles could be determined in 332 trials, of which 233/332 (70.2%) had a woman first or last author; 169/334 (50.6%) had a woman first author; 143/337 (42.4%) had a woman last author and 74/332 (22.3%) featured women in both roles. Women's leadership increased over time but was not associated with country income level, gender focus, study setting or impact factor. Effectiveness trials and those with fewer authors were more likely to have women in leadership.
conclusionsWomen's leadership in HIV trials has increased, reflecting progress in gender equity. However, smaller author teams appear to facilitate women's leadership, suggesting barriers in larger collaborations. Continued efforts are needed to ensure sustained progress and equitable representation.
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.