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
6 replies
2 recasts
32 reactions
Veiva
@veiva
Wow, this is so eye-opening and honestly frustrating. Like, how do you admit women need to be in the data, then just… not do it because of time pressure? The fact that it ends up delaying things anyway just shows how short-sighted that approach is. We deserve better than being an afterthought in research that affects us.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
dairy-free ditz
@shes-here
more time = more money and more time = later output and everyone wants to be the first to do it, with fixes coming in later 🥲
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction