ReviewBJA open2025
Equity of participants in clinical trials in critical care and perioperative medicine research: a systematic review.
Review in BJA open, 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.
- Beyond One-Size-Fits-All: Precision Mechanical Ventilation in ARDS.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Underrepresentation in critical care and perioperative randomised controlled trials (RCTs) limit generalisability and drive health inequity. This systematic review of large, high-quality RCTs analysed representation and reporting trends of equity data over 10 yr. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov between 01 January 2013 and 11 May 2023 for RCTs recruiting adults (age ≥18 yr) receiving a critical care/perioperative intervention. We examined study characteristics, completeness of participant characteristic reporting, considerations accounting for participant characteristics, differential missing data rates, participant representativeness, and considerations to improve equitable recruitment. Participant characteristics were defined using the PROGRESS framework: Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, and Social capital. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Results: We included 60 trials (52 critical care, eight perioperative medicine) involving 155 036 participants. Mean (sd) age was 62.9 (4.1) yr. Gender/sex ( Conclusions: Large, high-quality critical care and perioperative RCTs inconsistently collect and report equity data. Female and non-White participants are underrepresented. These findings potentially limit generalisability of research findings. Further work is required to promote equitable study designs. Systematic review protocol: PROSPERO (CRD42023401126).
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.