Reporting of socio-demographic characteristics of trial participants in infectious diseases clinical trials: a systematic review
Ong, S. W. X.; Blagojevic, C.; Bryce, A.; Ovadia, A.; Slater, M.; Pryal, D.; Careaga, R. E.; Moffroid, H.; Yerramilli, A.; Charani, E.; Daneman, N.; Tong, S. Y. C.
Show abstract
BackgroundReporting of demographic characteristics in randomised clinical trials (RCT) is recommended to facilitate assessment of generalisability to other populations. However, there is a lack of consensus as to what variables should be reported, and there are limited data describing current research practice. MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of all infectious diseases-related RCTs published between January 2014 to August 2023 in ten selected high impact journals. Outcomes of interest were the reporting of five patient-level sociodemographic characteristics, as recommended by the CONSORT-Equity 2017 extension to the CONSORT reporting guidelines: (a) ethnicity, (b) sex and/or gender, (c) education level, (d) socioeconomic status (SES), and (e) rurality. We summarised descriptive results for the reporting of each characteristic overall, by trial type (health equity-related vs non-health equity-related), subject area, and year of publication. We fitted multivariable logistic regression models to identify trial characteristics associated with the reporting of each characteristic. Results4234 articles were screened and 1343 were included. Almost all trials (97.4%) reported sex and/or gender. In contrast, less than half (49.3%) reported ethnicity, and only a minority reported education level (9.0%), SES (9.0%), and rurality (3.9%). There was no improvement in reporting of each characteristic over the 10-year period. Subject area, funding source, whether a trial was health-equity related, use of a medical writer, and trial setting (high vs low/middle-income country) were significantly associated with the reporting of ethnicity, education level, and SES. ConclusionReporting of socio-demographic characteristics in infectious diseases RCTs is inconsistent and has not improved over time.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- State of the evidence: a survey of global disparities in clinical trials 95%
- Public engagement and crowdfunding for health research: A global qualitative evidence synthesis and TDR pilot 93%
- Implementation outcomes of tuberculosis digital adherence technologies: a scoping review using the RE-AIM framework 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- An Analysis of Controlled Human Infection Studies Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov 96%
- Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation 95%
- Reporting of Retrospective Registration in Clinical Trial Publications 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Modelling the impact of behavioural interventions during pandemics: A systematic review 95%
- Protocol for the systematic review of the Pneumocystis jirovecii -associated pneumonia in non-HIV immunocompromised patients 94%
- Improving malaria case management with artemisinin-based combination therapies and malaria rapid diagnostic tests in private medicine retail outlets in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical Trials in COVID-19 Management & Prevention: A Meta-epidemiological Study examining methodological quality 96%
- The use of the Registered Reports format for publication of randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study 96%
- Characteristics and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews of prevalence studies in adult populations: a meta-epidemiological study 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: A Systematic Review and meta-Analysis 94%
- Does pre-notification increase questionnaire response rates: a nested randomised control trial 94%
- Investigator-initiated versus industry-sponsored trials – Visibility and relevance of randomized controlled trials in clinical practice guidelines (IMPACT) 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.