Lack of Diversity in Orthopaedic Trials Conducted in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several orthopaedic studies have suggested patient race and ethnicity to be important predictors of patient functional outcomes. This issue has also been emphasized by federal funding sources. However, the reporting of race and ethnicity has gained little attention in the orthopaedic literature. The objective of this study was to determine the percentage of orthopaedic randomized controlled clinical trials in the United States that included race and ethnicity data and to record the racial and ethnic distribution of patients enrolled in these trials. METHODS: A systematic review of orthopaedic randomized controlled trials published from 2008 to 2011 was performed. The studies were identified through a manual search of thirty-two scientific journals, including all major orthopaedic journals as well as five leading medical journals. Only trials from the United States were included. The publication date, journal impact factor, orthopaedic subspecialty, ZIP code of the primary research site, number of enrolled patients, type of funding, and race and ethnicity of the study population were extracted from the identified studies. RESULTS: A total of 158 randomized controlled trials with 37,625 enrolled patients matched the inclusion criteria. Only thirty-two studies (20.3%) included race or ethnicity with at least one descriptor. Government funding significantly increased the likelihood of reporting these factors (p < 0.05). The percentages of Hispanic and African-American patients were extractable for studies with 7648 and 6591 enrolled patients, respectively. In those studies, 4.6% (352) of the patients were Hispanic and 6.2% (410) were African-American; these proportions were 3.5-fold and twofold lower, respectively, than those represented in the 2010 United States Census. CONCLUSIONS: Few orthopaedic randomized controlled trials performed in the United States reported data on race or ethnicity. Among trials that did report demographic race or ethnicity data, the inclusion of minority patients was substantially lower than would be expected on the basis of census demographics. Failure to represent the true racial diversity may result in decreased generalizability of trial conclusions across clinical populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.044 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".