ArticleBMJ open2025
Recruitment, retention and reporting of ethnic representativeness in maternity trials: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- Time to explain and not just describe disparities.Anaesthesia · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionBlack and Asian women experience significantly higher rates of mortality and morbidity perinatally compared with white women and are more likely to lose their babies. These groups are also under-represented in clinical research, resulting in evidence that may not be generalisable. Tools have been developed to facilitate the inclusion of ethnic minority groups, but it is unknown to what extent representation and inclusion are considered in maternity trials.
aimTo provide an overview of how ethnically diverse recruitment is considered and reported in maternity trials in the UK.
methodsA scoping review was conducted, undertaking a systematic search to identify published trial protocols and their subsequent results papers, conducted within the UK, recruiting women during pregnancy or within 6 weeks postnatally between 2004 and 2024.Data was extracted from protocols on whether representation of participants was considered in the study design and if specific recruitment and retention strategies were planned for ethnic minority groups.Data extracted from results papers identified whether representation of participants was discussed and if recruitment strategies were discussed; these were compared against the protocol.
resultsA total of 96 published protocols met the inclusion criteria; 8 mentioned specific recruitment strategies and 5 mentioned specific retention strategies. Only two included both recruitment and retention strategies. The most common strategies included providing different types of language support and adapting interventions to be culturally appropriate. Strategies were not evaluated.67 results papers were available. Ethnicity was reported in 57 papers, with heterogeneity of categories between papers. Only 32 papers discussed representativeness of participants.
conclusionFew maternity trials report considerations on how they ensure they are recruiting and retaining ethnically representative participants. Minimal discussion is undertaken around the extent to which trial participants reflect the population to which findings will be applied.Further work is needed to support implementation and evaluation of inclusive research guidance. Failing to ensure those from ethnic minority groups are included in research can exacerbate inequalities.
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.