Adherence to Federal Guidelines for Reporting of Sex and Race/Ethnicity in Clinical Trials

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60612, USA.
Journal of Women's Health (Impact Factor: 2.05). 01/2007; 15(10):1123-31. DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2006.15.1123
Source: PubMed


The National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993 requires that NIH-funded clinical trials include women and minorities as subjects; other federal agencies have adopted similar guidelines. The objective of this study was to determine the current level of compliance with these guidelines in federally funded randomized controlled trials.
Randomized controlled trials published in nine influential medical journals in 2004 were identified by PubMed search. Studies where individuals were not the unit of analysis, those begun before 1994, and those not receiving federal funding were excluded. Included studies were examined to determine sample characteristics and presence of subgroup reporting.
PubMed located 589 published papers. After exclusion of ineligible papers, 69 remained for analysis. Among 46 clinical studies enrolling both men and women, women were generally underrepresented, comprising on average 37% of the sample and only 24% of the sample when analysis was restricted to drug trials. Eighty-seven percent of the studies did not report any outcomes by sex or include sex as a covariate in modeling. Among all 69 studies, 18% did not break down sample sizes by racial and ethnic groups, and 87% did not provide any analysis by racial or ethnic groups. Only 5 studies indicated that the generalizability of their results may be limited by lack of diversity among those studied.
These findings illustrate inadequate compliance with the NIH guidelines. Researchers, editors, and journal audiences share the responsibility of ensuring compliance with our country's policies regarding federally funded research to effect healthcare improvements for all.

Download full-text


Available from: Marci Adams, Apr 01, 2014
  • Source
    • "Studien zum erstgenannten Bereich haben bspw. die Berücksichtigung von Frauen in klinischen Studien untersucht [12] [13] [14] "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Gender and diversity have a strong impact on health and illness as evidenced by sex and gender differences in the onset and progression of diseases as well as in diagnosis, therapy, and therapeutic outcome. The number of sex/gender-specific studies in medicine has increased steadily in recent years, indicating sex (biological) and gender (social) differences in numerous diseases. Despite this evidence, however, sex/gender differences are rarely considered in medical practice or in health systems, suggesting a delay in transferring such research into evidence-based medical treatment. Similarly, quality improvement guidelines in medical care do not systematically integrate the sex/gender perspective.Against this backdrop, this paper seeks to enumerate the necessary components of a guideline development and evaluation process that systematically integrates sex/gender differences in addition to providing a sex/gender-based methodological approach. The latter is illustrated by a pilot study in which four international guidelines on depression were selected. The sex/gender appropriateness of these guidelines was analysed using two methods: first, sex/gender-relevant words were counted; and second, relevant sex/gender differences were summarised based on a systematic literature review and then compared with the information given in the guidelines. The findings of the pilot study revealed that although strong evidence exists on sex/gender differences in depression, such research was rarely implemented in the guidelines.Given the scope and potential of guidelines to improve the quality of health care, it is essential that they consider the crucial role of sex/gender differences. To date, sex/gender differences have been insufficiently addressed in guideline development and evaluation when they should be an integral component of the process.
    Zeitschrift für Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen 01/2010; 104(7):547-553. DOI:10.1016/j.zefq.2010.08.001
  • Source
    • "medicine for understanding the effects of gender on health (Doyal, 2001). This requires an effort among researchers to analyze their data for sex differences in outcomes, an effort that has been infrequently made in medical studies (Geller et al., 2006; Johnson et al., 2003). We found no empirical information in the literature about the extent to which nurse researchers analyze their data for sex differences. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper reports a study that examined the extent to which nurse researchers internationally disproportionately include females as participants in their research. A bias toward predominantly male samples has been well-documented in medical research, but recently a gender bias favoring women in nursing research has been identified in studies published in four North American journals. We extracted information about study samples and characteristics of the studies and authors from a consecutive sample of 834 studies published in eight leading English-language nursing research journals in 2005-2006. The primary analyses involved one-sample t-tests that tested the null hypothesis that males and females are equally represented as participants in nursing studies. Studies from different countries, in different specialty areas, and with varying author and methodologic characteristics were compared with regard to the key outcome variable, percent of participants who were female. Overall, 71% of participants, on average, were female, including 68% in client-focused research and 83% in nurse-focused studies (all p<.001). Females were significantly overrepresented as participants in client-focused research in almost all specialty areas, particularly in mental health, community health, health promotion, and geriatrics. The bias favoring female participants in client-focused studies was especially strong in the United States and Canada, but was also present in European countries, most Asian countries, and in Australia. Female overrepresentation was persistent, regardless of methodological characteristics (e.g., qualitative versus quantitative), funding source, and most researcher characteristics (e.g., academic rank). Studies with male authors, however, had more sex-balanced samples. The mean percentage female in client-focused studies with a female lead author was 70.0, compared to 52.1 for male lead authors. Nurse researchers not only in North America but around the globe need to pay attention to who will benefit from their research and to whether they are adequately inclusive in studying client groups about which there are knowledge gaps.
    International journal of nursing studies 03/2009; 46(8):1102-10. DOI:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.02.002 · 2.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study assesses the impact of the 1993 NIH Revitalization Act on the inclusion and subgroup analysis of women and minorities in trials of FDA-approved smoking cessation pharmacotherapy. Female representation, while commensurate with population levels, declined significantly for trials that began recruitment after 1993(M = 47.2% vs. M = 53.9%), and fewer than half reported analyses by gender. Minorities continued to be under-represented in later trials; however, significant improvement in representation (M = 16.1% vs. M = 10%) and analysis by race occurred. Industry-sponsored studies had lower minority representation than NIH funded studies. Recommendations are offered to improve subgroup analyses and minority inclusion.
    American Journal on Addictions 07/2009; 18(1):21-8. DOI:10.1080/10550490802408522 · 1.74 Impact Factor
Show more