ArticlePloS one2025
Examining equity-related eligibility criteria in clinical trials supporting 2022 US drug approvals.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exclusion of Participants for Substance Use in Clinical Trials.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Trial design and end points in hepatocellular carcinoma: an EASL-AASLD-ILCA consensus statement.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Methodological Limitations in "Self-Reported Vision-Related Quality of Life and Functional Impact in Portuguese Patients with Uveitis: A Cross-Sectional Study" [Letter].Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There has been substantial recent attention to the importance of diversity in clinical trials supporting US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approvals, including both Congressional action and FDA guidance. One factor that can contribute to a lack of diverse enrollment is overly strict eligibility criteria not supported by scientific or safety considerations. The aim of this study was to examine equity-related eligibility criteria in pivotal trials supporting all new molecular entities and therapeutic biologics approved by FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research in 2022. We qualitatively coded these criteria, using a codebook developed through inductive and deductive methods. The codebook consisted of categories relevant to equitable inclusion across race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, pregnancy, disability, and age; explanations of the potential relevance to equity, as well as potential scientific and regulatory justifications. We found that adolescents, pregnant/lactating individuals, and individuals with limited literacy were most commonly excluded and that about 1 trial in 5 excluded individuals based on weight/obesity, had general exclusions for hepatitis, or excluded adults aged 80 and up. Ultimately, our results indicate that several common eligibility criteria are likely to negatively influence equitable inclusion, especially based on age, pregnancy/lactation, and characteristics associated with race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. To minimize unnecessary equity-related exclusions, eligibility should focus on specific issues expected to influence safety or efficacy (e.g., liver function, drug interaction, uncontrolled comorbid disease), rather than blanket exclusion based on broad diagnoses or characteristics. Investigators, sponsors, institutional review boards, and regulators should scrutinize eligibility criteria with equity in mind.
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.