Assessing Equity and Representativeness in Randomised Controlled Trials: A Feasibility Study
Oparah, C.; O'Keefe, H.; Agbeleye, O.; Nesworthy, J.; Norman, G.; Kunonga, T. P.
Show abstract
Clinical trials often enrol populations that differ from those who ultimately receive the interventions, raising concerns about external validity and health equity. Trial registries could provide an early opportunity to assess representativeness, but it is unclear whether registry data contain sufficient information to enable such assessments. This study evaluated the feasibility of using registry data to assess representativeness in Phase II and III pharmacological randomised controlled trials. A search of ClinicalTrials.gov from December 2024 to January 2025 identified trials with results posted after 1 January 2023 across cardiovascular disease (CVD) excluding stroke, diabetes mellitus, and selected mental health disorders. Of 1,328 records screened, 98 trials met inclusion criteria (51 Phase III, 47 Phase II). Reporting completeness was variable, particularly in Phase II studies. CVD and diabetes trials predominantly included middle-aged to older adults, while mental health trials recruited mainly individuals aged 36 to 50 years. Across CVD and mental health trials, participants were largely male. Reporting of BMI, contraception, and comorbidity criteria was inconsistent, though available data suggested these factors influenced sample composition. Fewer than 10% of trials reported equity-relevant characteristics beyond age and sex, and none addressed intersectionality. Assessing equity using registry data is feasible but constrained by incomplete and inconsistent reporting.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
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%
- Results reporting for clinical trials led by medical universities and university hospitals in the Nordic countries was often missing or delayed 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation 95%
- The devil is in the details: Reporting and transparent research practices in sports medicine and orthopedic clinical trials 95%
- Reporting of Retrospective Registration in Clinical Trial Publications 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Investigating the use of a one-page infographic to improve recruitment and retention to the BASIL+ Randomised Controlled Trial: A Study Within a Trial (SWAT) 96%
- How Informative Were Early SARS-CoV-2 Treatment and Prevention Trials? A longitudinal cohort analysis of trials registered on clinicaltrials.gov 95%
- STIMULATE-ICP: A pragmatic, multi-centre, cluster randomised trial of an integrated care pathway with a nested, Phase III, open label, adaptive platform randomised drug trial in individuals with Long COVID: a structured protocol 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Pregnancy pharmacoepidemiology: How often are key methodological elements reported in publications? 92%
- Emulating randomized controlled trials of long-acting insulins and cardiovascular events using real-world data for patients with type 2 diabetes 92%
- Benzodiazepine Initiation Effect on Mortality Among Medicare Beneficiaries Post Acute Ischemic Stroke 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Trials that turn from retrospectively registered to prospectively registered: A cohort study of ‘retroactively prospective’ clinical trial registration using history data 95%
- Development of a consensus extension of the estimands framework for cluster randomised trials (CRT-estimands): results from an international Delphi study 93%
- Controlled evaLuation of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers for COVID-19 respIraTorY disease (CLARITY): Statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled Bayesian adaptive sample size trial 93%
"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.