Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush, Chicago, IL, USA.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2024 Jan 1;482(1):35-44. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002769. Epub 2023 Jul 25.
Serving as a principal investigator for a clinical trial can bring national visibility and recognition to physicians, and it can have a substantial impact on their promotion and tenure. In the field of orthopaedics, there is a well-known gender gap in terms of representation and leadership. Examining the representation of women in clinical trial leadership may help to inform and enable the design of targeted interventions and policies to foster a more inclusive and diverse environment in clinical trial leadership.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the proportion of women principal investigators in orthopaedic clinical trials, and has this changed over time? (2) Are there trial characteristics (trial phase, status, funding source, and intervention) associated with women principal investigators? (3) What is the geographic distribution globally and regionally within the United States of clinical trials led by women principal investigators?
A cross-sectional survey of clinical trials using the ClinialTrials.gov registry and results database provided by the NIH was performed on August 22, 2022. Trial characteristics included principal investigator names and gender, trial phase, type, funding source, intervention, and location (defined by continent and US Census region). Our primary outcome was the overall proportion of women orthopaedic principal investigators over time. We assessed this by comparing the proportion of women principal investigators from 2007 to 2022. Our secondary outcomes were trial characteristics (trial phase, status, funding source, and intervention) and geographic distribution (globally and within the United States) associated with women principal investigators. Baseline characteristics of the clinical trials were calculated using frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. Fisher exact tests were conducted to evaluate differences in gender proportions based on the included clinical trial characteristics. Univariate linear regression was applied to analyze trends in the annual proportion of women principal investigators over time.
The overall proportion of women principal investigators was 18% (592 of 3246), and this proportion increased over the study period. Specifically, the proportion of women leading clinical trials was 13% (16 of 121) in 2007 and 22% (53 of 242) in 2022 (r 2 = 0.68; p < 0.001). This trend was also observed when evaluating only US women principal investigators (r 2 = 0.47; p = 0.003) and non-US women principal investigators over the study period (r 2 = 0.298; p = 0.03). There was no difference in the distribution of trial phases between men and women principal investigators. Most men and women were involved in "not applicable" or Phase IV trials. Similarly, there was no difference in trial status or funding source. However, women principal investigators had a higher proportion of studies involving behavioral interventions (11% [67 of 592]) compared with men principal investigators (3% [74 of 2654]; p = 0.03). The proportion of women principal investigators over the study period by world region revealed a higher proportion of women principal investigators in Asia (23% [88 of 391]), followed by South America (24% [12 of 49]), North America (18% [306 of 1746]), and Europe (16% [136 of 833]). Among all US trials over the study period, the proportion of women principal investigators across the US Census region was Northeast (19% [62 of 329]), South (18% [90 of 488]), West (20% [97 of 492]), and Midwest (13% [22 of 168]).
Although there has been a notable increase in the proportion of women principal investigators over time, the overall representation remains relatively low. The disparities observed in trial characteristics and geographic distribution of women principal investigators further emphasize the need for targeted interventions and policies to foster a more inclusive and diverse environment in clinical trial leadership.
These results underscore the importance of adopting practices and strategies that foster gender equity in the leadership of orthopaedic clinical trials. By establishing mentorship and sponsorship programs, early-career women surgeons can be connected with experienced leaders, cultivating a supportive network and offering valuable career guidance. Additionally, addressing geographic disparities in the representation of women principal investigators can involve the implementation of mentorship and sponsorship programs in regions with lower representation.
作为临床试验的主要研究者,可以为医生带来全国性的知名度和认可,并且对他们的晋升和任期有重大影响。在骨科领域,在代表性和领导力方面存在明显的性别差距。研究女性在临床试验领导中的代表性情况,有助于了解和推动有针对性的干预措施和政策的制定,以促进临床试验领导中更具包容性和多样性的环境。
问题/目的:(1)骨科临床试验中女性主要研究者的比例是多少,是否随时间发生了变化?(2)是否存在与女性主要研究者相关的试验特征(试验阶段、状态、资金来源和干预措施)?(3)全球和美国境内由女性主要研究者领导的临床试验在地理上的分布情况如何?
于 2022 年 8 月 22 日,对使用 ClinialTrials.gov 注册和 NIH 提供的结果数据库的临床试验进行了一项横断面调查。试验特征包括主要研究者的姓名和性别、试验阶段、类型、资金来源、干预措施和位置(按大陆和美国人口普查区域定义)。我们的主要结局是随时间变化的女性骨科主要研究者的总体比例。我们通过比较 2007 年至 2022 年女性主要研究者的比例来评估这一点。我们的次要结局是与女性主要研究者相关的试验特征(试验阶段、状态、资金来源和干预措施)和地理分布(全球和美国境内)。使用频率和百分比对分类变量的临床试验基线特征进行计算。采用 Fisher 确切检验评估基于纳入临床试验特征的性别比例差异。应用单变量线性回归分析随时间变化的女性主要研究者年度比例趋势。
女性主要研究者的总体比例为 18%(592 名/3246 名),并且这一比例随研究期间而增加。具体来说,2007 年女性领导临床试验的比例为 13%(16 名/121 名),2022 年为 22%(53 名/242 名)(r 2 = 0.68;p < 0.001)。当仅评估美国女性主要研究者(r 2 = 0.47;p = 0.003)和研究期间非美国女性主要研究者时,也观察到了这一趋势(r 2 = 0.298;p = 0.03)。男性和女性主要研究者之间的试验阶段分布没有差异。大多数男性和女性都参与了“不适用”或第四阶段的试验。同样,试验状态或资金来源也没有差异。然而,女性主要研究者涉及行为干预的研究比例较高(11%[67 名/592 名]),而男性主要研究者(3%[74 名/2654 名];p = 0.03)。研究期间按世界区域划分的女性主要研究者比例显示,亚洲的女性主要研究者比例较高(23%[88 名/391 名]),其次是南美洲(24%[12 名/49 名])、北美洲(18%[306 名/1746 名])和欧洲(16%[136 名/833 名])。在研究期间所有的美国试验中,美国人口普查区域的女性主要研究者比例为东北部(19%[62 名/329 名])、南部(18%[90 名/488 名])、西部(20%[97 名/492 名])和中西部(13%[22 名/168 名])。
尽管女性主要研究者的比例随时间有显著增加,但总体代表性仍然相对较低。女性主要研究者在试验特征和地理分布方面存在的差异进一步强调了需要采取有针对性的干预措施和政策,以促进临床试验领导中的更具包容性和多样性的环境。
这些结果强调了在骨科临床试验领导中采用促进性别平等的实践和策略的重要性。通过建立导师制和赞助计划,可以将年轻的女性外科医生与经验丰富的领导者联系起来,培养一个支持性的网络,并提供宝贵的职业指导。此外,解决女性主要研究者代表性方面的地理差异,可以包括在代表性较低的地区实施导师制和赞助计划。