dairy-free ditz
@shes-here
i was mulling over these papers in the past week, as i was looking into the under representation of women in clincial trials+studies. which isn’t the best way to put it, as women ARE represented, but not faithfully, aka not to where it reflects the populations the study is looking to benefit [1]. Sosinsky et al. brings us this crazy statistic where in psychiatric trials, women are 60% of the patients but 42% of the participants. AND i wanted to highlight some company attitudes reflected in the trial investigators as shown in the study by Waltz et. al., who acknowledged the importance of data from female participants, and then said that the competition to have the drugs out first often led to there being not enough data on the drug’s impacts on female reproductive systems to use it. which leads to a inaccurate data set in the first place, requiring readjustments on the drug information later on bc it wasn’t tested accurately against female metabolic systems… leading to further to delay
4 replies
2 recasts
21 reactions
dairy-free ditz
@shes-here
TLDR have good data & representation of the end population you’re aiming to reach for better outcomes and less avoidable readjustment later on 1: (Sosinsky et al., 2022) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2022.106718 2: (Waltz et al., 2023) https://doi.org/10.1002/eahr.500170 - key issue: has a small sample of investigators interviewed, but still worth, in that they have industry based commentary + a variety of perspectives that go deeper than a regular questionnaire apologies for the mixed citation style i wanted to do apa in the beginning... oops 🤓
0 reply
0 recast
3 reactions