ArticleTrials2026
Beyond inclusion: are clinical trials solving the right problem?
Article in Trials, 2026. 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.
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In 2024, Denmark led the European Union in clinical trials per capita. This is celebrated as a marker of innovation, signalling Denmark's research capacity and attractiveness to the global industry. Yet, trial volume alone provides a limited account of clinical research value and hides a more troubling reality: research is concentrated in commercially lucrative areas such as oncology and Alzheimer's, while children, pregnant individuals, older adults, those with chronic pain, multimorbidity, or less profitable conditions are often overlooked. This mismatch is not merely a policy oversight. It reflects structural and epistemic injustices that determine whose bodies, experiences, and health outcomes are considered research-worthy. Drawing on Denmark as a national case example situated within broader European and international debates, this commentary highlights how inclusion strategies risk focusing on numeric representation rather than justice in knowledge production while also pointing to promising opportunities for inclusive innovation within the clinical research ecosystem in Europe. By moving beyond mere checklist inclusion, there is potential to foster a more equitable, reflective, and justice-oriented approach to participation and knowledge generation, one that benefits patients, researchers, and the broader society.
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.