ArticleBMJ open2026
Are equity, diversity and inclusion considered in early-phase studies evaluating innovative and developing surgical procedures? Protocol for a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIncreased risks and concerns regarding patient safety in early-phase studies exist because knowledge about the new intervention is still accumulating. This means that narrow eligibility criteria are needed. However, if early-phase studies are narrow in their inclusion, for example, by not including diverse populations, there is a potential risk that new therapies have insufficient relevant efficacy and safety data. Existing research has explored equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) factors in early-phase pharmaceutical studies, but it has not been possible to find studies that have systematically examined whether EDI factors have been considered in surgical studies reporting innovative procedures. We aim to examine how EDI factors are considered in early-phase surgical studies and surgical innovation reports to explore how this may impact on later-phase evaluation and inclusive intervention implementation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A scoping review following the JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute) and Arksey and O'Malley's five-step process is being conducted. We will search Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science for surgical early-phase studies. A two-step screening process for eligibility is being used. Independent double screening will take place for 20% of the papers. Eligible articles will report early evaluation of an innovative surgical/invasive procedure. Excluded will be comparative and later-phase studies and early evaluations of pharmaceutical products even in a surgical setting. Data on article details, patient eligibility and whether protected characteristics are reported and considered will be extracted. Information about EDI considerations reported in the introduction or discussion of the papers will also be extracted. Findings will be discussed with a patient advisory group. A content synthesis approach will be undertaken and descriptive summaries presented. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study does not require ethical approval being a secondary analysis. The findings will be disseminated through academic journal publications and oral presentations.
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.