Evidence mapPaperPMID 31253236Full record

ArticleWomen's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health2019

Enrollment and Retention of Men and Women in Health Services Research and Development Trials.

Karen M Goldstein, Wei Duan-Porter, Aviel Alkon, Maren K Olsen, Corrine I Voils, Susan N Hastings

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Karen M GoldsteinDurham Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: Karen.goldstein@va.gov.
Wei Duan-PorterUniversity of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Center for Care Delivery & Outcomes Research, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Aviel AlkonDurham Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Maren K OlsenDurham Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Corrine I VoilsDepartment of Surgery, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin.
Susan N HastingsDurham Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina; Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina; Center for the Study of Human Aging and Development, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.

Funding

HSRD VA CDA 13-263HSRD VA IK2 HX001540VA RCS 14-443
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSex- and gender-specific science is essential to inform patient-centered, evidence-based care. Developing such evidence requires adequate inclusion of both women and men in trials. We sought to describe study participation of women and men in Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development trials.

methodsWe identified recent health services research trials from one Health Services Research and Development Center of Innovation and compared the participation of women and men from trial recruitment to study completion. We also calculated the participation to prevalence ratio (PPR) by sex for each trial.

resultsWe included eight trials that started recruitment between 2011 and 2014. Only one study purposefully attempted to boost the recruitment of women. Overall, the PPR for women ranged from 0.2 to 4.5, with seven studies having a PPR of greater than 1, indicating that women participated in these trials at proportions greater than their prevalence in the disease population within the Department of Veterans Affairs. The PPR for men ranged from 0.8 to 1.1. Retention was best with those studies that used administrative data for final outcomes assessment. No studies provided results stratified by sex or conducted analyses to explore treatment effect by sex.

conclusionsAt a single site, women participated in Health Services Research and Development trials at similar or greater rates to men without cross-study efforts to enrich the recruitment or retention of women. Adding strategic recruitment approaches could further boost the proportion of women in Department of Veterans Affairs trials and enable adequately powered sex-based analyses.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionAdultClinical Trials as TopicFemaleHealth Services ResearchHumansMaleSex FactorsUnited StatesUnited States Department of Veterans AffairsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID31253236
PMCPMC8489188

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.