Underrepresentation of racial and ethnic minority groups in gynecologic oncology: An analysis of over 250 trials.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the participation of racial and ethnic minority groups (REMGs) in gynecologic oncology trials. METHODS: Gynecologic oncology studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov between 2007 and 2020 were identified. Trials with published results were analyzed based on reporting of race/ethnicity in relation to disease site and trial characteristics. Expected enrollment by race/ethnicity was calculated and compared to actual enrollment, adjusted for 2010 US Census population data. RESULTS: 2146 gynecologic oncology trials were identified. Of published trials (n = 252), 99 (39.3%) reported race/ethnicity data. Recent trials were more likely to report these data (36% from 2007 to 2009; 51% 2013-2015; and 53% from 2016 to 2018, p = 0.01). Of all trials, ovarian cancer trials were least likely to report race/ethnicity data (32.1% vs 39.3%, p = 0.011). Population-adjusted under-enrollment for Blacks was 7-fold in ovarian cancer, Latinx 10-fold for ovarian and 6-fold in uterine cancer trials, Asians 2.5-fold in uterine cancer trials, and American Indian and Alaska Native individuals 6-fold in ovarian trials. Trials for most disease sites have enrolled more REMGs in recent years - REMGs made up 19.6% of trial participants in 2007-2009 compared to 38.1% in 2016-2018 (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Less than half of trials that published results reported race/ethnicity data. Available data reveals that enrollment of REMGs is significantly below expected rates based on national census data. These disparities persisted even after additionally adjusting for population size. Despite improvement in recent years, additional recruitment of REMGs is needed to achieve more representative and equitable participation in gynecologic cancer clinical trials.

Obstetric Clinical Trial Diversity: Analysis of Trial Focus and Representation From 2007 to 2020.

Inclusive clinical trials are necessary to improve maternal health equity. We aimed to analyze the current state of race and ethnicity reporting and representation in obstetric trials and the association with trial focus for all U.S.-based obstetric trials between 2007 and 2020. In this cross-sectional, multivariable regression analysis, the exposure variable was clinical trial focus (eg, prematurity), and the outcomes were race and ethnicity reporting and representation of diverse cohorts. Obstetric anesthesia trials reported race and ethnicity the least frequently of all trial foci (adjusted odds ratio 0.2, 95% CI 0.08-0.48). Hypertension and obstetric anesthesia trials enrolled the lowest proportion of Black participants, and prematurity trials enrolled the lowest proportion of Latinx and Asian participants. All researchers should strive to improve measurement and reporting of demographic data as well participation of diverse cohorts.

Characterizing Clinical Trials in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: A Systematic Review of ClinicalTrials.gov From 2007 to 2020.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials form the backbone of evidence-based medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov is the world's largest clinical trial registry, and the state of clinical trials in plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) within that database has not been comprehensively studied. To that end, we explored the distribution of therapeutic areas that are under investigation, impact of funding on study design and data reporting, and trends in research patterns of all PRS interventional clinical trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. METHODS: Using the ClinicalTrials.gov database, we identified and extracted all clinical trials relevant to PRS that were submitted between 2007 and 2020. Studies were classified based on anatomic locations, therapeutic categories, and specialty topics. Cox proportional hazard was used to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for early discontinuation and results reporting. RESULTS: A total of 3224 trials that included 372,095 participants were identified. The PRS trials grew at an annual rate of 7.9%. The therapeutic classes most represented were wound healing (41.3%) and cosmetics (18.1%). Funding for PRS clinical trials is largely provided through academic institutions (72.7%), while industry and US government constituted a minority. Industry-funded studies were more likely to be discontinued early than those funded by academics (HR, 1.89) or government (HR, 1.92) and to be nonblinded and nonrandomized. Academic-funded studies were the least likely to report results data within 3 years of trial completion (odds ratio, 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: A gulf exists in the representation of different PRS specialties among clinical trials. We highlight the role of funding source in trial design and data reporting to identify a potential source of financial waste and to stress the need for continued appropriate oversight.

Race and Ethnicity Reporting and Representation in Pediatric Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Representative enrollment of racial and ethnic minoritized populations in biomedical research ensures the generalizability of results and equitable access to novel therapies. Previous studies on pediatric clinical trial diversity are limited to subsets of journals or disciplines. We aimed to evaluate race and ethnicity reporting and representation in all US pediatric clinical trials on ClinicalTrials.gov. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of US-based clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov that enrolled participants aged <18 years old between October 2007 and March 2020. We used descriptive statistics, compound annual growth rates, and multivariable logistic regression for data analysis. Estimates of US population statistics and disease burden were calculated with the US Census, Kids' Inpatient Database, and National Survey of Children's Health. RESULTS: Among 1183 trials encompassing 405 376 participants, race and ethnicity reporting significantly increased from 27% in 2007 to 87% in 2018 (P < .001). The median proportional enrollment of Asian American children was 0.6% (interquartile range [IQR], 0%-3.7%); American Indian, 0% (IQR, 0%-0%); Black, 12% (IQR, 2.9%-28.4%); Hispanic, 7.1% (IQR, 0%-18.6%); and white 66.4% (IQR, 41.5%-81.6%). Asian American, Black, and Hispanic participants were underrepresented relative to US population demographics. Compared with expected proportions based on disease prevalence and hospitalizations, Asian American and Hispanic participants were most consistently underrepresented across diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: While race and ethnicity reporting in pediatric clinical trials has improved, the representative enrollment of minoritized participants remains an ongoing challenge. Evidence-based and policy solutions are needed to address these disparities to advance biomedical innovation for all children.

Analysis of Female Participant Representation in Registered Oncology Clinical Trials in the United States from 2008 to 2020.

BACKGROUND: Female underrepresentation in oncology clinical trials can result in outcome disparities. We evaluated female participant representation in US oncology trials by intervention type, cancer site, and funding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were extracted from the publicly available Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov database. Initially, 270,172 studies were identified. Following the exclusion of trials using Medical Subject Heading terms, manual review, those with incomplete status, non-US location, sex-specific organ cancers, or lacking participant sex data, 1650 trials consisting of 240,776 participants remained. The primary outcome was participation to prevalence ratio (PPR): percent females among trial participants divided by percent females in the disease population per US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program data. PPRs of 0.8-1.2 reflect proportional female representation. RESULTS: Females represented 46.9% of participants (95% CI, 45.4-48.4); mean PPR for all trials was 0.912. Females were underrepresented in surgical (PPR 0.74) and other invasive (PPR 0.69) oncology trials. Among cancer sites, females were underrepresented in bladder (odds ratio [OR] 0.48, 95% CI 0.26-0.91, P = .02), head/neck (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.29-0.68, P < .01), stomach (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23-0.70, P < .01), and esophageal (OR 0.40 95% CI 0.22-0.74, P < .01) trials. Hematologic (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.09-1.82, P < .01) and pancreatic (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.46-3.26, P < .01) trials had higher odds of proportional female representation. Industry-funded trials had greater odds of proportional female representation (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.09-1.82, P = .01) than US government and academic-funded trials. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders should look to hematologic, pancreatic, and industry-funded cancer trials as exemplars of female participant representation and consider female representation when interpreting trial results.

Enrollment of Racial and Ethnic Minoritized Groups in Gynecologic Oncology Clinical Trials: A Review of the Scope of the Problem, Contributing Factors, and Strategies to Improve Inclusion.

Racial inequities are well-documented across the gynecologic oncology care continuum, including the representation of racial and ethnic minoritized groups (REMGs) in gynecologic oncology clinical trials. We specifically reviewed the scope of REMG disparities, contributing factors, and strategies to improve inclusion. We found systematic and progressively worsening under-enrollment of REMGs, particularly of Black and Latinx populations. In addition, race/ethnicity data reporting is poor, yet a prerequisite for accountability to recruitment goals. Trial participation barriers are multifactorial, and successful remediation likely requires multi-level strategies. More rigorous, transparent data on trial participants and effectiveness studies on REMG recruitment strategies are needed to improve enrollment.

Race and Ethnicity Reporting and Representation in Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinical Trials and Publications From 2007-2020.

Importance: Clinical trials guide evidence-based obstetrics and gynecology (OB-GYN) but often enroll nonrepresentative participants. Objective: To characterize race and ethnicity reporting and representation in US OB-GYN clinical trials and their subsequent publications and to analyze the association of subspecialty and funding with diverse representation. Design and Setting: Cross-sectional analysis of all OB-GYN studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (2007-2020) and publications from PubMed and Google Scholar (2007-2021). Analyses included logistic regression controlling for year, subspecialty, phase, funding, and site number. Data from 332 417 studies were downloaded. Studies with a noninterventional design, with a registration date before October 1, 2007, without relevance to OB-GYN, with no reported results, and with no US-based study site were excluded. Exposures: OB-GYN subspecialty and funder. Main Outcomes and Measures: Reporting of race and ethnicity data and racial and ethnic representation (the proportion of enrollees of American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Black, Latinx, or White identity and odds of representation above US Census estimates by race and ethnicity). Results: Among trials with ClinicalTrials.gov results (1287 trials with 591 196 participants) and publications (1147 trials with 821 111 participants), 662 (50.9%) and 856 (74.6%) reported race and ethnicity data, respectively. Among publications, gynecology studies were significantly less likely to report race and ethnicity than obstetrics (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.38-0.75). Reproductive endocrinology and infertility trials had the lowest odds of reporting race and ethnicity (aOR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.07-0.27; reference category, obstetrics). Obstetrics and family planning demonstrated the most diverse clinical trial cohorts. Compared with obstetric trials, gynecologic oncology had the lowest odds of Black representation (ClinicalTrials.gov: aOR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.02-0.09; publications: aOR, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.03-0.11) and Latinx representation (ClinicalTrials.gov: aOR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.02-0.14; publications: aOR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.10-0.48), followed by urogynecology and reproductive endocrinology and infertility. Urogynecology (ClinicalTrials.gov: aOR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.05-0.39; publications: aOR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09-0.58) had the lowest odds of Asian representation. Conclusions and Relevance: Race and ethnicity reporting and representation in OB-GYN trials are suboptimal. Obstetrics and family planning trials demonstrate improved representation is achievable. Nonetheless, all subspecialties should strive for more equitably representative research.

How many US obstetrical trials reach publication? A cross-sectional analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed from 2007 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Obstetrical clinical trials are the foundation of evidence-based medicine during pregnancy. As more obstetrical trials are conducted, understanding the publication characteristics of these trials is of utmost importance to advance obstetrical health. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to characterize the frequency of publication and trial characteristics associated with publication among obstetrical clinical trials in the United States. We additionally sought to examine time from trial completion to publication. STUDY DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional analysis of completed obstetrical trials with an intervention design and at least 1 site in the United States registered to ClinicalTrials.gov from 2007 to 2019. Trial characteristics were cross-referenced with PubMed to determine publication status up to 2021 using the National Clinical Trial identification number. Bivariable analyses were conducted to determine trial characteristics associated with publication. Multivariable logistic regression models controlling for prespecified covariates were generated to estimate the relationship between funding, primary purpose, and therapeutic foci with publication. Additional exploratory analyses of other trial characteristics were conducted. Time to publication was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression models. RESULTS: Of the 1879 obstetrical trials with registered completion, a total of 575 (30.6%) had at least 1 site in the United States, were completed before October 1, 2019, and were included in this analysis. Between October 2007 and October 2019, fewer than two-thirds (N=348, 60.5%) of trials reached publication. Annual rates of publication ranged from 46.4% in 2018 to 70.0% in 2007. No difference was observed in publication by funding, primary purpose, or therapeutic foci (all P>.05). Trials with characteristics indicating high trial quality-including randomized allocation scheme, ≥50 participants enrolled, ≥2 sites, and presence of a data safety monitoring committee-had increased odds of publication compared with those without such characteristics (all P<.05). For example, studies with randomized allocation of intervention had 2-fold greater odds of publication than nonrandomized studies (adjusted odds ratio, 2.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-3.37). Studies with ≥150 participants had nearly 8-fold odds of publication (adjusted odds ratio, 7.90; 95% confidence interval, 3.78-17.49) relative to studies with <50 participants. Temporal analysis demonstrated variability in time to publication among obstetrical trials, with a median time of 20.1 months after trial completion, and with most trials that reached publication having been published by 40 months. No difference was observed in time to publication by funding, primary purpose, or therapeutic foci (all P>.05). CONCLUSION: Publication of obstetrical trials remains suboptimal, with significant differences observed between trials with indicators of high quality and those without. Most trials that reach publication are published within 2 years of registered completion on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Race/ethnicity reporting and representation in US clinical trials: a cohort study.

Background: Systemic progress in improving trial representation is uncertain, and previous analyses of minority trial participation have been limited to small cohorts with limited exploration of driving factors. Methods: We analyzed detailed trial records from all US clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov from March 2000 to March 2020. Minority enrollment was compared to 2010 US Census demographic estimates using Wilcoxon test. We utilized logistic regression and generalized linear regression with a logit link to assess the association of possible drivers (including trials' funding source, size, phase, and design) with trials' disclosure of and amount of minority enrollment respectively. Findings: Among 20,692 US-based trials with reported results (representing ~4·76 million enrollees), only 43% (8,871/20,692) reported any race/ethnicity data. The majority of enrollees were White (median 79·7%; interquartile range [IQR] 61·9-90·0%), followed by Black (10·0%; IQR 2·5-23·5%), Hispanic/Latino (6·0%; IQR 0·43-15·4%), Asian (1·0%; IQR 0·0-4·1%), and American Indian (0·0%; IQR 0·0-0·2%). Median combined enrollment of minority race/ethnicity groups (Black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, American Indian, Other/Multi) was below census estimates (27·6%) (p<0·001) however increased at an annual rate of 1·7%. Industry and Academic funding were negatively associated with race/ethnicity reporting (Industry adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0·42, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0·38 to 0·46, p<0.0001; Academic aOR: 0·45, CI: 0·41 to 0·50, p<0.0001). Industry also had a negative association with the proportion of minority ethnicity enrollees (aOR: 0·69, CI: 0·60 to 0·79) compared to US Government-funded trials. Interpretation: Over the past two decades, the majority of US trials in ClinicalTrials.gov do not report race/ethnicity enrollment data, and minorities are underrepresented in trials with modest improvement over time. Funding: Stanford Medical Scholars Research Funding, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, NIH (1K01HL144607) and the American Heart Association/Robert Wood Johnson Medical Faculty Development Program.

Early Discontinuation, Results Reporting, and Publication of Gynecology Clinical Trials From 2007 to 2020.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize gynecology clinical trials over time, compare gynecology subspecialties, and analyze factors associated with early discontinuation, results reporting, and publication. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of all gynecology trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov between 2007 and 2020 and their resulting publications. Trials were analyzed with descriptive, multivariable logistic, and Cox regression analyses. Primary exposure variables were trial funding and subspecialty. The three primary outcomes included early discontinuation, results reporting to ClinicalTrials.gov, and publication in a peer-reviewed journal indexed on PubMed. RESULTS: Of 223,690 trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov between October 2007 and March 2020, only 3.7% focused on gynecology (n=8,174, approximately 3,759,086 participants). Subspecialties included reproductive endocrinology and infertility (n=1,428, 17.5%), gynecologic oncology (n=2,063, 25.2%), urogynecology (n=1,118, 13.7%), family planning (n=648, 7.9%), and other benign gynecology (n=2,917, 35.7%). Only 42.0% of completed trials disseminated results through results reporting and publication. Of all funding types, industry-funded trials were the most likely to be discontinued early (P<.001). Academic-funded trials were the least likely to report results (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.38, 95% CI 0.30-0.50) but the most likely to publish (aOR 1.62, 95% CI 1.24-2.12). The number of reproductive endocrinology and infertility trials increased the most of any subspecialty between 2007 and 2020 (6.4% growth rate). Reproductive endocrinology and infertility and family planning trials were the most likely to be stopped early (reproductive endocrinology and infertility: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.08, 95% CI 1.59-2.71; family planning: aHR 1.55 95% CI 1.06-2.25). When completed, reproductive endocrinology and infertility trials were the least likely to report results (aOR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38-0.88). No significant differences were seen between subspecialties with respect to publication. CONCLUSION: Gynecology trials comprise only 3.7% of all clinical trials. The paucity of gynecology clinical trials aligns with decades of female underrepresentation in research. When completed, gynecology trials have poor dissemination. Our findings raise concern about bias in the performance, reporting, and publication of gynecology clinical trials.

Early Discontinuation, Results Reporting, and Publication of Pediatric Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Unique ethical, epidemiological, and economic factors are barriers to performing research in children. The landscape of pediatric clinical trials, including drivers of completion and timely dissemination of results, is not well understood. We aimed to characterize the prevalence of and factors associated with early discontinuation, results reporting, and publication of pediatric clinical trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of clinical trials enrolling participants <18 years old registered at ClinicalTrials.gov from October 2007 to March 2020. Multivariable logistic regressions were performed to assess the association between trial characteristics and primary outcomes. Publication data were obtained through PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, and Scopus. RESULTS: Overall, 11.1% trials were stopped early, with recruitment failure being the predominant reason for discontinuation. Only 23.5% of completed trials reported results, and 38.8% were published within 3 years of completion. Rates of discontinuation and publication significantly improved over the study period. Among funding sources, government-sponsored trials (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.47-0.97) and academic trials (aOR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50-0.82) had lower odds of discontinuation compared with industry trials and were more likely to be published (government: aOR, 1.94 [95% CI, 1.52-2.48] academic: aOR, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.35-1.92). Academic trial investigators were the least likely to report results (aOR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.31-0.52). CONCLUSIONS: Early discontinuation and nonreporting/nonpublication of findings remain common in registered pediatric clinical trials and were associated with funding source and other trial features. Targeted efforts are needed to support trial completion and timely results dissemination toward strengthening evidence-based pediatric medicine.

Kinder Ready Clinics: A Collaborative Model for Creating Equitable and Engaged Early Learning Environments for Low-income Families.

Disparities in children's school readiness (SR) in the U.S. are well-documented and have detrimental long-term consequences. Clinic-based early education interventions are limited. This report summarizes collaborative efforts of pediatricians and community stakeholders to develop and implement clinic-based interventions to promote early learning and SR among low-income children.

Optimizing Engagement in an mHealth Intervention for Diabetes Support During Pregnancy: the Role of Baseline Patient Health and Behavioral Characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Mobile health (mHealth) technology that addresses diabetes mellitus in pregnancy has the potential to improve maternal and child health while diminishing socioeconomic and racial disparities. Little is known about health literacy, electronic health literacy, or patient characteristics that contribute to increased mHealth use. In this pilot study, we aimed to examine patient factors associated with user engagement with a novel app for diabetes support during pregnancy. METHOD: Low-income pregnant individuals with gestational or type 2 diabetes mellitus were recruited for a 2-week usability assessment of a novel mHealth smartphone application, "SweetMama," designed to improve diabetes care. This analysis of user characteristics was a pilot assessment of data from the usability study phase. Participants completed assessments of patient health literacy, electronic health literacy, diabetes self-efficacy, and activation. User metrics (eg, sessions and total duration of use) were evaluated by participant characteristics. Descriptive analyses were conducted to assess outcomes with respect to patient's clinical history, health literacy, electronic health literacy, diabetes self-efficacy, and activation. RESULTS: Twenty-two diverse, low-income pregnant patients with either gestational or type 2 diabetes engaged with SweetMama for 14 days. Participants with gestational diabetes had greater mean minutes of use per session and mean total duration of use than those with type 2 diabetes. Participants with greater electronic health literacy, lower patient activation, and greater self-efficacy demonstrated greater total duration of use. No user metrics differed significantly by participant general health literacy. CONCLUSIONS: Findings of this pilot study suggest engagement with a novel mHealth app for diabetes support during pregnancy varied by baseline behavioral and clinical characteristics. Results could indicate that digital health literacy better differentiates engagement patterns than general health literacy.

Neurology trial registrations on ClinicalTrials.gov between 2007 and 2018: A cross-sectional analysis of characteristics, early discontinuation, and results reporting.

BACKGROUND: Increasing neurological disease burden and advancing treatment options require clinical trials to expand the evidence base of clinical care. We aimed to characterize neurology clinical trials registered between October 2007 and April 2018 and identify features associated with early discontinuation and results reporting. METHODS: We compared 16,994 neurology (9.4%) and 163,714 non-neurology comparison trials registered to ClinicalTrials.gov. Trials therapeutic focus within neurology was assigned via combination programmatic and manual review. We performed descriptive analyses of trial characteristics, cox regression of early discontinuation, and multivariable logistic regression for results reporting within 3 years of completion. RESULTS: Most neurology trials were academic-funded (58.5%) followed by industry (31.9%) and US-government (9.6%). Neurology trials focused more on treatment than prevention compared to non-neurology studies. Of neurology trials, 11.3% discontinued early, and 32.2% of completed trials reported results by April 30, 2018. In multivariable analysis accounting for time-to-event, neurology trials were at lower risk of discontinuation than non-neurology trials (adjusted hazard 0.83, p < 0.0001). Both academic and government-funded trials had greater risk of discontinuation than industry (adjusted hazard 0.57 and 0.46, respectively). Among completed trials, government-funded studies (adjusted odds ratio 2.12, p < 0.0001) had highest odds of results reporting while academic trials reported less (adjusted odds ratio 0.51, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Funding source is associated with trial characteristics and outcomes in neurology. Improvements in trial completion and timely dissemination of results remain urgent goals for the field.

Analysis of Female Enrollment and Participant Sex by Burden of Disease in US Clinical Trials Between 2000 and 2020.

Importance: Although female representation has increased in clinical trials, little is known about how clinical trial representation compares with burden of disease or is associated with clinical trial features, including disease category. Objective: To describe the rate of sex reporting (ie, the presence of clinical trial data according to sex), compare the female burden of disease with the female proportion of clinical trial enrollees, and investigate the associations of disease category and clinical trial features with the female proportion of clinical trial enrollees. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included descriptive analyses and logistic and generalized linear regression analyses with a logit link. Data were downloaded from the Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov database for all studies registered between March 1, 2000, and March 9, 2020. Enrollment was compared with data from the 2016 Global Burden of Disease database. Of 328 452 clinical trials, 70 095 were excluded because they had noninterventional designs, 167 936 because they had recruitment sites outside the US, 69 084 because they had no reported results, 1003 because they received primary funding from the US military, and 314 because they had unclear sex categories. A total of 20 020 interventional studies enrolling approximately 5.11 million participants met inclusion criteria and were divided into those with and without data on participant sex. Exposures: The primary exposure variable was clinical trial disease category. Secondary exposure variables included funding, study design, and study phase. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sex reporting and female proportion of participants in clinical trials. Results: Among 20 020 clinical trials from 2000 to 2020, 19 866 studies (99.2%) reported sex, and 154 studies (0.8%) did not. Clinical trials in the fields of oncology (46% of disability-adjusted life-years [DALYs]; 43% of participants), neurology (56% of DALYs; 53% of participants), immunology (49% of DALYs; 46% of participants), and nephrology (45% of DALYs; 42% of participants) had the lowest female representation relative to corresponding DALYs. Male participants were underrepresented in 8 disease categories, with the greatest disparity in clinical trials of musculoskeletal disease and trauma (11.3% difference between representation and proportion of DALYs). Clinical trials of preventive interventions were associated with greater female enrollment (adjusted relative difference, 8.48%; 95% CI, 3.77%-13.00%). Clinical trials in cardiology (adjusted relative difference, -18.68%; 95% CI, -22.87% to -14.47%) and pediatrics (adjusted relative difference, -20.47%; 95% CI, -25.77% to -15.16%) had the greatest negative association with female enrollment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, sex differences in clinical trials varied by clinical trial disease category, with male and female participants underrepresented in different medical fields. Although sex equity has progressed, these findings suggest that sex bias in clinical trials persists within medical fields, with negative consequences for the health of all individuals.

The obstetrical research landscape: a cross-sectional analysis of clinical trials from 2007-2020.

Background: Obstetrical complications affect more than a third of women globally, but are underrepresented in clinical research. Little is known about the comprehensive obstetrical clinical trial landscape, how it compares with other fields, or factors associated with the successful completion of obstetrical trials. Objective: This study aimed to characterize obstetrical clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with the primary objective of identifying features associated with early discontinuation and results reporting. Study Design: This is a cross-sectional study with descriptive, logistic regression and Cox regression analyses of clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Our primary exposure variables were trial focus (obstetrical or nonobstetrical) and trial funding (industry, United States government, or academic). We conducted additional exploratory analyses of other trial features including design, enrollment, and therapeutic focus. We examined the associations of exposure variables and other trial features with 2 primary outcomes: early discontinuation and results reporting. Results: We downloaded data for all studies (N=332,417) registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from October 1, 2007, to March 9, 2020, from the Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov database. We excluded studies with a noninterventional design (n=63,697) and those registered before October 1, 2007 (n=45,209). A total of 4276 obstetrical trials (1.9%) (ie, interventional studies) and 219,235 nonobstetric trials (98.1%) were compared. Among all trials, 2.8% of academic-funded trials, 1.9% of United States government-funded trials, and 0.4% of industry-funded trials focused on obstetrics. The quantity of obstetrical trials increased over time (10.8% annual growth rate). Compared with nonobstetrical trials, obstetrical trials had a greater risk of early discontinuation (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.62; P<.0001) and similar odds of results reporting (adjusted odds ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.10; P=.19). Among obstetrical trials funders after controlling for confounding variables, United States government-funded trials were at the lowest risk of early discontinuation (United States government, adjusted hazard ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.69; P=.009; industry reference; academic, adjusted hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-1.74; P=.88). Academic-funded trials had the lowest odds of results reporting after controlling for confounding variables (academic institutions, adjusted odds ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-0.68; P=.0009; industry reference; United States government, adjusted odds ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-2.09; P=.87). Conclusion: Obstetrical trials represent only 1.9% of all clinical trials in ClinicalTrials.gov and have comparatively poor completion. All stakeholders should commit to increasing the number of obstetrical trials and improving their completion and dissemination to ensure clinical research reflects the obstetrical burden of disease and advances maternal health.

Clinical Trial Outcomes in Urology: Assessing Early Discontinuation, Results Reporting and Publication in ClinicalTrials.Gov Registrations 2007-2019.

PURPOSE: Clinical trials require significant resources, but benefits are only realized after trial completion and dissemination of results. We comprehensively assessed early discontinuation, registry results reporting, and publication by trial sponsor and subspecialty in urology trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed trial registrations from 2007 to 2019 on ClinicalTrials.gov and publication data from PubMed®/MEDLINE®. Associations between sponsor or subspecialty with early discontinuation were assessed using Cox proportional hazards and results reporting or publication with logistic regression at 3 years after completion. RESULTS: Of 8,636 trials 3,541 (41.0%) were completed and 999 (11.6%) were discontinued. Of completed trials 26.9% reported results and 21.6% were published. Sponsors included academic institutions (53.1%), industry (37.1%) and the U.S. government (9.8%). Academic-sponsored (adjusted HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.96, p=0.012) and government-sponsored trials (adjusted HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49-0.78, p <0.001) were less likely than industry to discontinue early. Government-sponsored trials were more likely to report (adjusted OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.17-2.54, p=0.006) and publish (adjusted OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.23-2.89, p=0.004). Academic-sponsored trials were less likely to report (adjusted OR 0.65, CI:0.48-0.88, p=0.006) but more likely to publish (adjusted OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.25-2.37, p <0.001). These outcomes were similar across subspecialties. However, endourology was more likely to discontinue early (adjusted HR 2.00, 95% CI 1.53-2.95, p <0.001), general urology was more likely to report results (adjusted OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.13-2.11, p=0.006) and andrology was less likely to publish (adjusted OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35-0.81, p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Sponsor type is significantly associated with trial completion and dissemination. Government-sponsored trials had the best performance, while industry and academic-sponsored trials lagged in completion and results reporting, respectively. Subspecialty played a lesser role. Lack of dissemination remains a problem for urology trials.

Medical Student Values Inform Career Plans in Service & Surgery-A Qualitative Focus Group Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Diversifying the surgical workforce is a critical component of improving care for underserved patients. To recruit surgeons from diverse backgrounds, we must understand how medical students choose their specialty. We investigate how preclinical students contemplate entering a surgical field. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted semistructured focus groups during two iterations of a seminar class called Service Through Surgery. Discussion goals included identifying student values and assessing how they inform early career decisions. We used a systematic, collaborative, and iterative process for transcript analysis, including developing a codebook, assessing inter-rater reliability, and analyzing themes. RESULTS: Twenty-four preclinical medical students from diverse backgrounds participated in seven focus groups; most were women (16; 67%), in their first year of medical school (19; 79%), and interested in surgery (17; 71%). Participants ranked professional fulfillment, spending time with family, and serving their communities and/or underserved populations among their most important values and agreed that conducting groundbreaking research, working long hours, and finding time for leisure activities were the least important. We constructed a framework to describe student responses surrounding their diverse visions for service in future surgical careers through individual doctoring interactions, roles in academia, and broader public service. CONCLUSIONS: Our framework provides a basis for greater understanding and study of the ways in which preclinical medical students think about their personal values and visions for service in potential future surgical careers. This research can guide early interventions in medical education to promote diversity and care for the underserved in surgery.