Beyond Bleeding: Unpacking Gender Disparities in Von Willebrand Disease Clinical Trials of the Past Half-Century
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Von Willebrand Disease (VWD) is the most common inherited bleeding disorder, characterized by deficiencies or defects in von Willebrand factor (VWF), leading to impaired platelet adhesion and coagulation cascade dysfunction (1). Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) play an important role in evaluating therapeutic interventions and improving clinical management strategies for VWD patients worldwide (2). Over the past decades, a distinct gender participation gap has become apparent, favoring females in the enrollment of clinical trials for VWD, but fluctuating overall. Our study aims to investigate the contributing factors to this imbalance, such as physio-pathological reasons, socio-demographic characteristics, accessibility barriers, and awareness limitations. Methods: In this descriptive, retrospective study, we conducted a comprehensive search across multiple databases including PUBMED, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central, and EMBASE from January 1970 to July 2024. We identified publications reporting RCTs focused on VWD, and data were extracted on the number of participants, their gender distribution, the countries where trials were conducted, and the year of publication. Descriptive statistical analyses were performed to summarize these variables and explore trends over time. Results: We identified 20 studies encompassing a total of 2445 individuals with VWD. Among these trials, 46.6% of participants were male and 53.3% were female. The majority of RCTs, approximately 84.62%, were conducted in the United States, underscoring its leading role in VWD research. Germany represented 23.08% of the trials, followed by Italy with 19.23%. Austria and the Netherlands each accounted for 11.54% of the trials. Canada and Ukraine were also significant locations, hosting 11.54% of the trials each, while Japan and the United Kingdom hosted 7.69% each. Additional countries involved in trials included Australia, Argentina, Belarus, Bulgaria, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Lebanon, Poland, Russia, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, and Turkey, each contributing 3.85% of the trials. Analysis of publication trends revealed that 50% of the RCTs were conducted between 1970 and 2011. The male-to-female ratio varied across different time periods: it was 1.3 for RCTs performed between 1970 and 2000, indeterminate for RCTs between 2001 and 2011 (with studies exclusively in females during this period), and 0.78 for RCTs conducted between 2013 and 2024, reflecting evolving gender distributions in VWD research over time. Conclusions: In conclusion, this study provides an overview of the landscape of RCTs in Von Willebrand Disease research from 1970 to 2024. The predominance of trials conducted in the United States underscores its pivotal role in advancing knowledge and treatment strategies for VWD globally. The fluctuating male-to-female ratio across different study periods highlights shifting demographic trends and emphasizes the importance of gender-specific considerations in clinical trial design and interpretation. Moving forward, continued international collaboration and diversity in trial locations are essential to further enhance our understanding and management of this challenging bleeding disorder. An important observation from this analysis is the varying male-to-female ratio over different periods, particularly noting a bias towards female participants in recent years. The discovery of an indeterminate ratio during 2001 to 2011, where only studies exclusively involving females were identified, suggests potential biases in participant recruitment strategies or study design preferences during that period. Moving forward, efforts to promote inclusivity and diversity in participant recruitment could help mitigate biases and ensure equitable representation across all demographic groups affected by VWD.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,283 | 0,588 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,014 | 0,022 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,010 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; l’étiquette directe de Gemma et le classifieur distillé Codex s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».