The more things change, the more they stay the same: A study to evaluate compliance with inclusion and assessment of women and minorities in randomized controlled trials

Academic Medicine

Volumn 93, Issue 4, 2018, Pages 630-635

  Geller, Stacie E ^a   Koch, Abigail R ^a   Roesch, Pamela ^a   Filut, Amarette ^b   Hallgren, Emily ^a   Carnes, Molly ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EVALUATION STUDY; FEMALE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HUMAN; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; MALE; MINORITY GROUP; NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION; ORGANIZATIONAL POLICY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; UNITED STATES;

FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MINORITY GROUPS; NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH (U.S.); ORGANIZATIONAL POLICY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH SUPPORT AS TOPIC; UNITED STATES; WOMEN;

EID: 85056033295     PISSN: 10402446     EISSN: 1938808X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002027     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Public Health Service Task Force on Women’s Health. Report of the Public Health Service Task Force on Women’s Health Issues. Vol. 100. Washington, DC: Public Health Service; 1985.
2. National Institutes of Health. Office of Research on Women’s Health. Report of the Advisory Committee on Research on Women’s Health, Fiscal Years 2013–2014: Office of Research on Women’s Health and NIH Support for Research on Women’s Health. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 2015.
3. National Institutes of Health. NIH guidelines on the inclusion of women and minorities as subjects in clinical research. Fed Regist. 1994;59:14508–14513.
4. National Institutes of Health. Office of Extramural Research. NIH policy and guidelines on the inclusion of women and minorities as subjects in clinical research—Amended, October 2001. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-001.html. Published 2001. Accessed October 5, 2017.
5. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Better Oversight Needed to Help Ensure Continued Progress Including Women in Health Research. Rep to Congr Requesters. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office; 2015; GAO-16-13.
6. Oh SS, Galanter J, Thakur N, et al. Diversity in clinical and biomedical research: A promise yet to be fulfilled. PLOS Med. 2015;12:e1001918.
7. National Institutes of Health. Office of Research on Women’s Health. Appendix E: Aggregate enrollment data tables and trend data. In: Report of the Advisory Committee on Research on Women’s Health, Fiscal Years 2013–2014: Office of Research on Women’s Health and NIH Support for Research on Women’s Health. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 2015.
8. Geller SE, Koch A, Pellettieri B, Carnes M. Inclusion, analysis, and reporting of sex and race/ethnicity in clinical trials: Have we made progress? J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2011;20:315–320.
9. Geller SE, Adams MG, Carnes M. Adherence to federal guidelines for reporting of sex and race/ethnicity in clinical trials. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2006;15:1123–1131.
10. Curno MJ, Rossi S, Hodges-Mameletzis I, Johnston R, Price MA, Heidari S. A systematic review of the inclusion (or exclusion) of women in HIV research: From clinical studies of antiretrovirals and vaccines to cure strategies. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016;71:181–188.
11. Chen MS Jr, Lara PN, Dang JH, Paterniti DA, Kelly K. Twenty years post-NIH Revitalization Act: Enhancing minority participation in clinical trials (EMPaCT): Laying the groundwork for improving minority clinical trial accrual: Renewing the case for enhancing minority participation in cancer clinical trials. Cancer. 2014;120(suppl 7):1091–1096.
12. Foulkes MA. After inclusion, information and inference: Reporting on clinical trials results after 15 years of monitoring inclusion of women. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2011;20:829–836.
13. Nolan MR, Nguyen TL. Analysis and reporting of sex differences in phase III medical device clinical trials—How are we doing? J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2013;22:399–401.
14. Web of Science. www.webofknowledge.com. Accessed October 2, 2017. [Account and log-in required.]
15. Castilla EJ, Benard S. The paradox of organizations. Science. 2010;55:543–576.
16. Kaiser CR, Major B, Jurcevic I, Dover TL, Brady LM, Shapiro JR. Presumed fair: Ironic effects of organizational diversity structures. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2013;104:504–519.
17. Valian V. Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1999.
18. Isaac C, Lee B, Carnes M. Interventions that affect gender bias in hiring: A systematic review. Acad Med. 2009;84:1440–1446.
19. Schiebinger L, Leopold SS, Miller VM. Editorial policies for sex and gender analysis. Lancet. 2016;388:2841–2842.
20. Leopold SS, Beadling L, Dobbs MB, et al. Editorial: Fairness to all: Gender and sex in scientific reporting. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:391–392.
21. Clayton JA, Tannenbaum C. Reporting sex, gender, or both in clinical research? JAMA. 2016;316:1863–1864.
22. Pettinati HM, Kampman KM, Lynch KG, et al. Gender differences with high-dose naltrexone in patients with co-occurring cocaine and alcohol dependence. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2008;34:378–390.
23. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D; CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med. 2010;8:18.