↓ Skip to main content

Temporal trends and characteristics of clinical trials for which only one racial or ethnic group is eligible

Overview of attention for article published in Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Temporal trends and characteristics of clinical trials for which only one racial or ethnic group is eligible
Published in
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications, January 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.conctc.2018.01.004
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brian L. Egleston, Omar Pedraza, Yu-Ning Wong, Candace L. Griffin, Eric A. Ross, J. Robert Beck

Abstract

Increasing diversity in clinical trials may be worthwhile. We examined clinical trials that restricted eligibility to a single race or ethnicity. We reviewed 19,246 trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov through January 2013. We mapped trial ZIP-codes to U.S. Census and American Community Survey data. The outcome was whether trials required participants to be from a single racial or ethnic group. In adjusted analyses, the odds of trials restricting eligibility to a single race/ethnicity increased by 4% per year (95% CI 1.01-1.08, p = .024). Behavioral (5.79% with single race/ethnicity requirements), skin-related (4.49%), and Vitamin D (6.14%) studies had higher rates of single race/ethnicity requirements. Many other trial-specific characteristics, such as funding agency and region of the U.S. in which the trial opened, were associated with eligibility restrictions. In terms of neighborhood characteristics, studies with single race eligibility requirements were more likely to be located in ZIP-codes with greater percentages of those self-reporting the characteristic. For example, 35.2% (SD = 24.9%) of the population self-reported themselves as Black or African American in ZIP-codes with trials requiring participants to be Black/African American, but only 5.9% (SD = 6.9%) self-reported themselves as Black/African American in ZIP-codes with trials that required Asian ethnicity. In ZIP-codes with trials requiring Asian ethnicity, 24.6% (SD = 16.2%) self-reported as Asian. In ZIP-codes with trials requiring Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, 33.3% (SD = 28.5%) self-reported as Hispanic/Latino. Neighborhood level poverty rates and reduced English language ability were also associated with more single race eligibility requirements. In selected fields, there has been a modest temporal increase in single race/ethnicity inclusion requirements. Some studies may not fall under regulatory purview and hence may be less likely to include diverse samples. Conversely, some eligibility requirements may be related to health disparities research. Future work should examine whether targeted enrollment criteria facilitates development of personalized medicine or reduces trial access.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Researcher 3 14%
Librarian 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 7 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 10 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 April 2018.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
#464
of 610 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#343,114
of 448,910 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
#11
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 610 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 448,910 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.