ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Center2026
Female underrepresentation and adverse events reporting biases in lung cancer clinical trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Center, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Despite regulatory initiatives to improve female representation in clinical trials, sex-based disparities persist, particularly in oncology. This is of concern given the rising burden of lung cancer in women. We aimed to quantify female representation in lung cancer clinical trials over the past three decades and to examine whether trial-level differences in female enrolment were associated with differences in reported adverse events (AEs). Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating drug therapies for lung cancer, identified through PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from Jan 1, 1993, to April 1, 2025. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and evaluated risk of bias. Enrolment incidence disparity (EID) was calculated to assess female representation. Reported incidence of AEs was analysed in relation to female representation across treatment settings. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024537925). Results: Among 44,915 records identified, 636 studies comprising 265,989 participants were included. Most studies were judged to be at low risk of bias (83%), whereas 3% were at high risk. The pooled EID was -3.17% (95% CI: 4.10, -2.24), indicating underrepresentation of women overall, particularly in trials conducted in very high Human Development Index (HDI) settings, including Europe, Oceania, and North America. Underrepresentation was also observed across several trial subgroups, including younger populations, predominantly Caucasian populations, and selected disease-stage strata. Trial-level differences in female representation were associated with differences in reported AE incidence across treatment settings. Conclusions: Women remain underrepresented in lung cancer RCTs, which may limit the generalisability of trial findings to female patients. Trial-level differences in female representation were associated with differences in reported AE incidence, supporting the need for more inclusive recruitment and more transparent sex-disaggregated safety reporting.
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.