Race, Ethnicity, and Sex in Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group Clinical Studies.

IF 7.8 1区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Qais A Dihan, Ahmad F Alzein, Othman M Ibrahim, Amr K Hassan, Muhammad Z Chauhan, Isdin Oke, Ahmed B Sallam, David G Hunter, Aparna Raghuram, Paul H Phillips, Abdelrahman M Elhusseiny
{"title":"Race, Ethnicity, and Sex in Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group Clinical Studies.","authors":"Qais A Dihan, Ahmad F Alzein, Othman M Ibrahim, Amr K Hassan, Muhammad Z Chauhan, Isdin Oke, Ahmed B Sallam, David G Hunter, Aparna Raghuram, Paul H Phillips, Abdelrahman M Elhusseiny","doi":"10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2024.3281","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Racial, ethnic, and sex disparities exist in US clinical study enrollment, and the prevalence of these disparities in Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group (PEDIG) clinical studies has not been thoroughly assessed.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate racial, ethnic, and sex representation in PEDIG clinical studies compared with the 2010 US Census pediatric population.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This cross-sectional analysis examined PEDIG clinical studies based in the US from December 1, 1997 to September 12, 2022, 41 of which met inclusion criteria of a completed study, a study population younger than 18 years, and 1 or more accompanying publication. Data analysis was performed between November 2023 and February 2024.</p><p><strong>Exposure: </strong>Study participant race, ethnicity, and sex for each clinical study, as collected from peer-reviewed publications, patient-enrollment datasets, and ClinicalTrials.gov.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Median enrollment percentages of female, White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, and other race participants were calculated and compared with the 2010 US Census pediatric population using a 1-sample Wilcoxon rank test. Proportionate enrollment was defined as no difference on a 1-sample Wilcoxon rank test if P ≥ .05. If P < .05, we determined if the median enrollment percentage was greater than or less than 2010 US Census proportion to determine if enrollees were underrepresented or overrepresented. To calculate the magnitude of overrepresentation or underrepresentation, enrollment-census difference (ECD) was defined as the difference between groups' median enrollment percentage and percentage representation in the 2010 US Census. Compound annual growth rate (CAGR) was used to measure temporal trends in enrollment, and logistic regression analysis was used to analyze factors that may have contributed to proportionate representation outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 11 658 study participants in 41 clinical studies were included; mean (SD) participant age was 5.9 (2.8) years and 5918 study participants (50.8%) were female. In clinical studies meeting inclusion criteria, White participants were overrepresented (ECD, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.10-0.28; P < .001). Black participants (ECD, -0.07; 95% CI, -0.10 to -0.03; P < .001), Asian participants (ECD, -0.03; 95% CI, -0.04 to -0.02; P < .001), and Hispanic participants (ECD, -0.09; 95% CI, -0.13 to -0.05; P < .001) were underrepresented. Female participants were represented proportionately (ECD, 0.004; 95% CI, -0.036 to 0.045; P = .21). White and Asian participants demonstrated a decreasing trend in study enrollment from 1997 to 2022 (White: CAGR, -1.5%; 95% CI, -2.3% to -0.6%; Asian: CAGR, -1.7%; 95% CI, -2.0% to -1.4%), while Hispanic participants demonstrated an increasing enrollment trend (CAGR, 7.2%; 95% CI, 3.7%-10.7%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this retrospective cross-sectional study of PEDIG clinical studies from December 1, 1997 to September 12, 2022, Black, Hispanic, and Asian participants were underrepresented, White participants were overrepresented, and female participants were represented proportionally. Trends suggested increasing enrollment of Hispanic participants and decreasing enrollment of White participants over time. This study demonstrates an opportunity to advocate for increased enrollment of underrepresented groups in pediatric ophthalmology clinical studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":14518,"journal":{"name":"JAMA ophthalmology","volume":" ","pages":"926-933"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11378066/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2024.3281","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: Racial, ethnic, and sex disparities exist in US clinical study enrollment, and the prevalence of these disparities in Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group (PEDIG) clinical studies has not been thoroughly assessed.

Objective: To evaluate racial, ethnic, and sex representation in PEDIG clinical studies compared with the 2010 US Census pediatric population.

Design, setting, and participants: This cross-sectional analysis examined PEDIG clinical studies based in the US from December 1, 1997 to September 12, 2022, 41 of which met inclusion criteria of a completed study, a study population younger than 18 years, and 1 or more accompanying publication. Data analysis was performed between November 2023 and February 2024.

Exposure: Study participant race, ethnicity, and sex for each clinical study, as collected from peer-reviewed publications, patient-enrollment datasets, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

Main outcomes and measures: Median enrollment percentages of female, White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, and other race participants were calculated and compared with the 2010 US Census pediatric population using a 1-sample Wilcoxon rank test. Proportionate enrollment was defined as no difference on a 1-sample Wilcoxon rank test if P ≥ .05. If P < .05, we determined if the median enrollment percentage was greater than or less than 2010 US Census proportion to determine if enrollees were underrepresented or overrepresented. To calculate the magnitude of overrepresentation or underrepresentation, enrollment-census difference (ECD) was defined as the difference between groups' median enrollment percentage and percentage representation in the 2010 US Census. Compound annual growth rate (CAGR) was used to measure temporal trends in enrollment, and logistic regression analysis was used to analyze factors that may have contributed to proportionate representation outcomes.

Results: A total of 11 658 study participants in 41 clinical studies were included; mean (SD) participant age was 5.9 (2.8) years and 5918 study participants (50.8%) were female. In clinical studies meeting inclusion criteria, White participants were overrepresented (ECD, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.10-0.28; P < .001). Black participants (ECD, -0.07; 95% CI, -0.10 to -0.03; P < .001), Asian participants (ECD, -0.03; 95% CI, -0.04 to -0.02; P < .001), and Hispanic participants (ECD, -0.09; 95% CI, -0.13 to -0.05; P < .001) were underrepresented. Female participants were represented proportionately (ECD, 0.004; 95% CI, -0.036 to 0.045; P = .21). White and Asian participants demonstrated a decreasing trend in study enrollment from 1997 to 2022 (White: CAGR, -1.5%; 95% CI, -2.3% to -0.6%; Asian: CAGR, -1.7%; 95% CI, -2.0% to -1.4%), while Hispanic participants demonstrated an increasing enrollment trend (CAGR, 7.2%; 95% CI, 3.7%-10.7%).

Conclusions and relevance: In this retrospective cross-sectional study of PEDIG clinical studies from December 1, 1997 to September 12, 2022, Black, Hispanic, and Asian participants were underrepresented, White participants were overrepresented, and female participants were represented proportionally. Trends suggested increasing enrollment of Hispanic participants and decreasing enrollment of White participants over time. This study demonstrates an opportunity to advocate for increased enrollment of underrepresented groups in pediatric ophthalmology clinical studies.

儿科眼病调查组临床研究中的种族、民族和性别。
重要性:美国临床研究注册中存在种族、民族和性别差异,而这些差异在儿科眼病研究组(PEDIG)临床研究中的普遍性尚未得到全面评估:与 2010 年美国人口普查儿科人口相比,评估 PEDIG 临床研究中的种族、民族和性别代表性:这项横断面分析研究了1997年12月1日至2022年9月12日期间在美国进行的PEDIG临床研究,其中41项研究符合纳入标准,即研究已完成、研究人群年龄小于18岁、有1篇或更多随附出版物。数据分析在 2023 年 11 月至 2024 年 2 月期间进行。资料来源:从同行评议出版物、患者注册数据集和 ClinicalTrials.gov 收集的每项临床研究的参与者种族、民族和性别:计算女性、白人、黑人、西班牙裔、亚裔和其他种族参与者的注册百分比中位数,并通过单样本 Wilcoxon 秩检验与 2010 年美国人口普查儿科人口进行比较。在 1 样本 Wilcoxon 秩 序检验中,如果 P≥.05 则定义为无差异。如果 P 结果:共纳入了 41 项临床研究中的 11 658 名研究参与者;参与者的平均(标清)年龄为 5.9(2.8)岁,5918 名研究参与者(50.8%)为女性。在符合纳入标准的临床研究中,白人参与者的比例偏高(ECD,0.19;95% CI,0.10-0.28;P 结论及相关性:在这项对 1997 年 12 月 1 日至 2022 年 9 月 12 日期间的 PEDIG 临床研究进行的回顾性横断面研究中,黑人、西班牙裔和亚裔参与者的比例偏低,白人参与者的比例偏高,女性参与者的比例偏高。趋势表明,随着时间的推移,西班牙裔参与者的注册人数在增加,而白人参与者的注册人数在减少。这项研究表明,我们有机会倡导在儿科眼科临床研究中增加对代表性不足群体的招募。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JAMA ophthalmology
JAMA ophthalmology OPHTHALMOLOGY-
CiteScore
13.20
自引率
3.70%
发文量
340
期刊介绍: JAMA Ophthalmology, with a rich history of continuous publication since 1869, stands as a distinguished international, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to ophthalmology and visual science. In 2019, the journal proudly commemorated 150 years of uninterrupted service to the field. As a member of the esteemed JAMA Network, a consortium renowned for its peer-reviewed general medical and specialty publications, JAMA Ophthalmology upholds the highest standards of excellence in disseminating cutting-edge research and insights. Join us in celebrating our legacy and advancing the frontiers of ophthalmology and visual science.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信