Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41100085›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Gender Diversity of Research Teams and Clinical Trial Enrollment.

Harsh Gupta, Anupam B Jena, Eric C Sun

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Breaking Down Barriers … and Calcium: The EMPOWERment of Women With Calcific Coronary Artery Disease.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Harsh GuptaDepartment of Economics, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Anupam B JenaDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Eric C SunDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Inequity in clinical trial enrollment, particularly the underenrollment of women, is an ongoing concern in biomedical sciences. The extent to which increasing gender diversity among research teams, particularly, study principal investigators, could address this inequity is unclear. Objective: To assess the association between principal investigator gender and the proportion of women participants in clinical trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional analysis used clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov that started enrollment after January 1, 2007, and completed enrollment before September 1, 2021, to analyze how the proportion of women participants in clinical trials varied by principal investigator gender, accounting for the disease being studied and when a trial was conducted (analyses were performed in October 2024). In an analysis of mechanisms, this study assessed whether specific decisions by investigators that could influence enrollment of women (eg, selecting women as study staff or including pregnant patients) varied by principal investigator gender. Exposure: Principal investigator gender. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of trial participants who are women. Results: Across 10 708 trials, 3151 (29.2%) had a woman principal investigator. After adjusting for potential confounders, mean enrollment of women in trials with a woman principal investigator was 54.1% (95% CI, 53.0%-55.1%) compared with 46.9% (95% CI, 46.3%-47.5%) for trials in which the principal investigator was a man (absolute adjusted difference, 7.3% [95% CI, 6.7%-7.9%]; P < .001). Secondary analyses found that trials with a woman principal investigator had a higher proportion of women staff and were less likely to exclude pregnant patients. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study of a large sample of clinical trials found that those with a woman principal investigator enrolled a higher proportion of women participants, had a higher proportion of women study staff, and were less likely to exclude pregnant patients. These results suggest that inequity in clinical trial enrollment, particularly the underenrollment of women, is an ongoing concern in biomedical sciences.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicPatient SelectionResearch PersonnelAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSex Factors

Identifiers

PMID41100085
PMCPMC12531878

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.