SynthesisReviews in cardiovascular medicine2026
Representation of Women in Atrial Fibrillation Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Disparities exist in the representation of genders in cardiovascular clinical trials. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality; however, understanding regarding the representation of women in AF-related clinical trials remains limited. Therefore, this systematic review sought to evaluate the representation of women in AF-related clinical trials. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of clinical trials using the PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE databases from 1996 to January 1st, 2024, focusing on AF-related lifestyle interventions, pharmacological treatments, catheter ablation, and device therapies for AF. Data extraction and analysis encompassed trial characteristics, participant demographics, and funding sources. The primary outcome was the prevalence of female enrollees, quantified through participation-to-prevalence ratios (PPRs). This was estimated overall and stratified by funding source, intervention type, and enrollment region. Results: Of the 103 clinical trials involving 218,322 participants (39.5% female), the PPR ranged from 0.00 to 1.73, with an average PPR of 1.03. Meanwhile, 43% of the trials exhibited female under-representation (PPR, <0.8). University-funded trials showed higher female enrollment (mean PPR, 0.951) compared to industry/government-funded trials (mean PPR, 0.800). No differences were observed in the representation of women when comparing enrollment regions or intervention types. Conclusions: Despite advancements in AF management, gender disparities persist in AF-related clinical trial representation, particularly in industry/government-funded studies compared to university-funded trials. Thus, addressing implicit biases and enforcing sex equality guidelines are critical steps toward more inclusive cardiovascular research.
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.