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: 1.9). 01/2007; 15(10):1123-31. DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2006.15.1123
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.


Available from: Marci Adams, Apr 01, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Neuroscience research on sex difference is currently a controversial field, frequently accused of purveying a 'neurosexism' that functions to naturalise gender inequalities. However, there has been little empirical investigation of how information about neurobiological sex difference is interpreted within wider society. This paper presents a case study that tracks the journey of one high-profile study of neurobiological sex differences from its scientific publication through various layers of the public domain. A content analysis was performed to ascertain how the study was represented in five domains of communication: the original scientific article, a press release, the traditional news media, online reader comments and blog entries. Analysis suggested that scientific research on sex difference offers an opportunity to rehearse abiding cultural understandings of gender. In both scientific and popular contexts, traditional gender stereotypes were projected onto the novel scientific information, which was harnessed to demonstrate the factual truth and normative legitimacy of these beliefs. Though strains of misogyny were evident within the readers' comments, most discussion of the study took pains to portray the sexes' unique abilities as equal and 'complementary'. However, this content often resembled a form of benevolent sexism, in which praise of women's social-emotional skills compensated for their relegation from more esteemed trait-domains, such as rationality and productivity. The paper suggests that embedding these stereotype patterns in neuroscience may intensify their rhetorical potency by lending them the epistemic authority of science. It argues that the neuroscience of sex difference does not merely reflect, but can actively shape the gender norms of contemporary society.
    PLoS ONE 10/2014; 9(10):e110830. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0110830 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Criminology & Public Policy 05/2012; 11(2). DOI:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2012.00793.x
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Many of the unique health issues facing women are related to reproductive health and pregnancy. However, several conditions that affect both sexes have distinct manifestations in women including cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, and anemia. The extent of the effect that the physiological differences between men and women have on the natural course of these diseases and the validity of applying a standard treatment to both genders has not been fully explored. Historically, medical research has largely excluded women, rendering the application of evidence-based medicine to women's health issues somewhat of a misnomer. While most research in women's health originates from developed nations, consideration must be given to women in all regions of the world. Compared to women in developed nations, women in resource-poor countries are burdened with increased morbidity and mortality from gender-related health issues. In order to globally advance women's health, the physiologic and social differences between men and women must be more clearly characterized and these differences must be taken into consideration when designing research endeavors and developing health policy.
    Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation 08/2014; 74(S244):2-7. DOI:10.3109/00365513.2014.936672 · 2.01 Impact Factor