Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39979609›Full record

ReviewEye (London, England)2025

Gender and ethnic diversity in randomised clinical trials in age-related macular degeneration and diabetic macular oedema.

Farah Ni Ibrahim, Sobha Sivaprasad, Chui Ming Gemmy Cheung

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Eye (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Farah Ni IbrahimSingapore National Eye Centre, Singapore, Singapore.
Sobha SivaprasadNational Institute of Health Research Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Chui Ming Gemmy CheungSingapore National Eye Centre, Singapore, Singapore. gemmy.cheung.c.m@snec.com.sg.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3358-3516

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, there has been increasing recognition of the importance of diversity in pivotal randomised clinical trials (RCTs). This is vital to ensure the validity and applicability of the results in the clinical setting. In this review, we aim to assess the inclusion of females and minoritized groups in recent RCTs in age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and diabetic macular oedema (DMO) and explore any potential barriers to their enrolment. Overall, a female predominance was observed among the AMD RCTs while less than half of the study population in DMO trials were females. White participants made up the majority of the study population in both AMD and DMO trials. Gender distribution within minoritized groups has only been reported in a few trials but appears lower than in the white population. This disparity may be attributable to the difference in the prevalence of diseases between these subgroups, as well as social and/ or cultural reasons. Nonetheless, there has been an overall increase in representation of minoritized groups over the past two decades. These observations provide important perspectives to consider when applying clinical trial learnings to clinical settings.

Indexed as

Diabetic RetinopathyEthnicityMacular DegenerationMacular EdemaRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicFemaleHumansMaleMinority GroupsPatient SelectionSex Factors

Identifiers

PMID39979609
PMCPMC12043835

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.