ReviewFrontiers in physiology2026
Science policies and practice of including and excluding women from clinical studies: focus on cardiovascular research.
Review in Frontiers in physiology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The under-representation of women in clinical studies remains a major issue, recognized by researchers, patients, and legislators alike. In this review, we examine the key legislative documents that have shaped policies governing the exclusion and inclusion of women in clinical research over the past several decades, and their impact on seminal cardiovascular studies. We focus on early federal human-subject regulations codified as the Common Rule, which initially contributed to the near-complete exclusion of women, and trace the gradual recognition of the need for women's inclusion and the progress achieved to date. Key trials discussed include the Framingham Heart Study, the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT), and the Physicians' Health Study (PHS), as well as a meta-analysis of over 1, 000 cardiovascular trials conducted between 2017 and 2023. We also discuss the critiques of the legislation including the current reliance on informed consent from a bioethics perspective.
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.