Loading…

Analysis of Female Enrollment and Participant Sex by Burden of Disease in US Clinical Trials Between 2000 and 2020

Although female representation has increased in clinical trials, little is known about how clinical trial representation compares with burden of disease or is associated with clinical trial features, including disease category. To describe the rate of sex reporting (ie, the presence of clinical tria...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:JAMA network open 2021-06, Vol.4 (6), p.e2113749-e2113749
Main Authors: Steinberg, Jecca R, Turner, Brandon E, Weeks, Brannon T, Magnani, Christopher J, Wong, Bonnie O, Rodriguez, Fatima, Yee, Lynn M, Cullen, Mark R
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a473t-33fda32b817be63afd73659be61ec6d6381782e742a7af9eaf07cc40b8e0e2f33
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a473t-33fda32b817be63afd73659be61ec6d6381782e742a7af9eaf07cc40b8e0e2f33
container_end_page e2113749
container_issue 6
container_start_page e2113749
container_title JAMA network open
container_volume 4
creator Steinberg, Jecca R
Turner, Brandon E
Weeks, Brannon T
Magnani, Christopher J
Wong, Bonnie O
Rodriguez, Fatima
Yee, Lynn M
Cullen, Mark R
description Although female representation has increased in clinical trials, little is known about how clinical trial representation compares with burden of disease or is associated with clinical trial features, including disease category. To describe the rate of sex reporting (ie, the presence of clinical trial data according to sex), compare the female burden of disease with the female proportion of clinical trial enrollees, and investigate the associations of disease category and clinical trial features with the female proportion of clinical trial enrollees. This cross-sectional study included descriptive analyses and logistic and generalized linear regression analyses with a logit link. Data were downloaded from the Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov database for all studies registered between March 1, 2000, and March 9, 2020. Enrollment was compared with data from the 2016 Global Burden of Disease database. Of 328 452 clinical trials, 70 095 were excluded because they had noninterventional designs, 167 936 because they had recruitment sites outside the US, 69 084 because they had no reported results, 1003 because they received primary funding from the US military, and 314 because they had unclear sex categories. A total of 20 020 interventional studies enrolling approximately 5.11 million participants met inclusion criteria and were divided into those with and without data on participant sex. The primary exposure variable was clinical trial disease category. Secondary exposure variables included funding, study design, and study phase. Sex reporting and female proportion of participants in clinical trials. Among 20 020 clinical trials from 2000 to 2020, 19 866 studies (99.2%) reported sex, and 154 studies (0.8%) did not. Clinical trials in the fields of oncology (46% of disability-adjusted life-years [DALYs]; 43% of participants), neurology (56% of DALYs; 53% of participants), immunology (49% of DALYs; 46% of participants), and nephrology (45% of DALYs; 42% of participants) had the lowest female representation relative to corresponding DALYs. Male participants were underrepresented in 8 disease categories, with the greatest disparity in clinical trials of musculoskeletal disease and trauma (11.3% difference between representation and proportion of DALYs). Clinical trials of preventive interventions were associated with greater female enrollment (adjusted relative difference, 8.48%; 95% CI, 3.77%-13.00%). Clinical trials in cardiology (adjusted relative diffe
doi_str_mv 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.13749
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8214160</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2667823076</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a473t-33fda32b817be63afd73659be61ec6d6381782e742a7af9eaf07cc40b8e0e2f33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdUV1v1DAQtBCIVkf_ArLghZe7-it2wgNSe7QUqRJIbZ-tTbIBH4592Alw_x5fW6rSp11rZmdnPYS84WzFGePHGxgh4PQ7ph9xi2ElmOArLo1qnpFDURm1lDWrnj_qD8hRzhvGmGBcNrp6SQ6k4kryRhySdBLA77LLNA70HEfwSM9Cit6PGCYKoadfIU2uc1so7yv8Q9sdPZ1Tj2E_8tFlhIzUBXpzRdfeBdeBp9fJgc_0tBjFQhRl-61WcctekRdDAfHovi7IzfnZ9fpiefnl0-f1yeUSlJHTUsqhBynampsWtYShN1JXTek5drrXsgC1QKMEGBgahIGZrlOsrZGhGKRckA93utu5HbHvyj0JvN0mN0La2QjO_o8E991-i79sLbjimhWBd_cCKf6cMU92dLlD70sAcc5WVEoqJU0pC_L2CXUT51S-trC0Lj4lM7qw3t-xuhRzTjg8mOHM7tO1T9K1-3Ttbbpl-PXjcx5G_2Up_wI57KUh</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2667823076</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Analysis of Female Enrollment and Participant Sex by Burden of Disease in US Clinical Trials Between 2000 and 2020</title><source>Publicly Available Content Database (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</source><creator>Steinberg, Jecca R ; Turner, Brandon E ; Weeks, Brannon T ; Magnani, Christopher J ; Wong, Bonnie O ; Rodriguez, Fatima ; Yee, Lynn M ; Cullen, Mark R</creator><creatorcontrib>Steinberg, Jecca R ; Turner, Brandon E ; Weeks, Brannon T ; Magnani, Christopher J ; Wong, Bonnie O ; Rodriguez, Fatima ; Yee, Lynn M ; Cullen, Mark R</creatorcontrib><description>Although female representation has increased in clinical trials, little is known about how clinical trial representation compares with burden of disease or is associated with clinical trial features, including disease category. To describe the rate of sex reporting (ie, the presence of clinical trial data according to sex), compare the female burden of disease with the female proportion of clinical trial enrollees, and investigate the associations of disease category and clinical trial features with the female proportion of clinical trial enrollees. This cross-sectional study included descriptive analyses and logistic and generalized linear regression analyses with a logit link. Data were downloaded from the Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov database for all studies registered between March 1, 2000, and March 9, 2020. Enrollment was compared with data from the 2016 Global Burden of Disease database. Of 328 452 clinical trials, 70 095 were excluded because they had noninterventional designs, 167 936 because they had recruitment sites outside the US, 69 084 because they had no reported results, 1003 because they received primary funding from the US military, and 314 because they had unclear sex categories. A total of 20 020 interventional studies enrolling approximately 5.11 million participants met inclusion criteria and were divided into those with and without data on participant sex. The primary exposure variable was clinical trial disease category. Secondary exposure variables included funding, study design, and study phase. Sex reporting and female proportion of participants in clinical trials. Among 20 020 clinical trials from 2000 to 2020, 19 866 studies (99.2%) reported sex, and 154 studies (0.8%) did not. Clinical trials in the fields of oncology (46% of disability-adjusted life-years [DALYs]; 43% of participants), neurology (56% of DALYs; 53% of participants), immunology (49% of DALYs; 46% of participants), and nephrology (45% of DALYs; 42% of participants) had the lowest female representation relative to corresponding DALYs. Male participants were underrepresented in 8 disease categories, with the greatest disparity in clinical trials of musculoskeletal disease and trauma (11.3% difference between representation and proportion of DALYs). Clinical trials of preventive interventions were associated with greater female enrollment (adjusted relative difference, 8.48%; 95% CI, 3.77%-13.00%). Clinical trials in cardiology (adjusted relative difference, -18.68%; 95% CI, -22.87% to -14.47%) and pediatrics (adjusted relative difference, -20.47%; 95% CI, -25.77% to -15.16%) had the greatest negative association with female enrollment. In this study, sex differences in clinical trials varied by clinical trial disease category, with male and female participants underrepresented in different medical fields. Although sex equity has progressed, these findings suggest that sex bias in clinical trials persists within medical fields, with negative consequences for the health of all individuals.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2574-3805</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2574-3805</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.13749</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34143192</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Medical Association</publisher><subject>Adult ; Clinical trials ; Cost of Illness ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Female ; Gender differences ; Humans ; Logistic Models ; Online Only ; Original Investigation ; Public Health ; Research Subjects - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Sex Factors ; United States</subject><ispartof>JAMA network open, 2021-06, Vol.4 (6), p.e2113749-e2113749</ispartof><rights>2021. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>Copyright 2021 Steinberg JR et al. .</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a473t-33fda32b817be63afd73659be61ec6d6381782e742a7af9eaf07cc40b8e0e2f33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a473t-33fda32b817be63afd73659be61ec6d6381782e742a7af9eaf07cc40b8e0e2f33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2667823076?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,25753,27924,27925,37012,37013,44590</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34143192$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Steinberg, Jecca R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Turner, Brandon E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weeks, Brannon T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Magnani, Christopher J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wong, Bonnie O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rodriguez, Fatima</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yee, Lynn M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cullen, Mark R</creatorcontrib><title>Analysis of Female Enrollment and Participant Sex by Burden of Disease in US Clinical Trials Between 2000 and 2020</title><title>JAMA network open</title><addtitle>JAMA Netw Open</addtitle><description>Although female representation has increased in clinical trials, little is known about how clinical trial representation compares with burden of disease or is associated with clinical trial features, including disease category. To describe the rate of sex reporting (ie, the presence of clinical trial data according to sex), compare the female burden of disease with the female proportion of clinical trial enrollees, and investigate the associations of disease category and clinical trial features with the female proportion of clinical trial enrollees. This cross-sectional study included descriptive analyses and logistic and generalized linear regression analyses with a logit link. Data were downloaded from the Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov database for all studies registered between March 1, 2000, and March 9, 2020. Enrollment was compared with data from the 2016 Global Burden of Disease database. Of 328 452 clinical trials, 70 095 were excluded because they had noninterventional designs, 167 936 because they had recruitment sites outside the US, 69 084 because they had no reported results, 1003 because they received primary funding from the US military, and 314 because they had unclear sex categories. A total of 20 020 interventional studies enrolling approximately 5.11 million participants met inclusion criteria and were divided into those with and without data on participant sex. The primary exposure variable was clinical trial disease category. Secondary exposure variables included funding, study design, and study phase. Sex reporting and female proportion of participants in clinical trials. Among 20 020 clinical trials from 2000 to 2020, 19 866 studies (99.2%) reported sex, and 154 studies (0.8%) did not. Clinical trials in the fields of oncology (46% of disability-adjusted life-years [DALYs]; 43% of participants), neurology (56% of DALYs; 53% of participants), immunology (49% of DALYs; 46% of participants), and nephrology (45% of DALYs; 42% of participants) had the lowest female representation relative to corresponding DALYs. Male participants were underrepresented in 8 disease categories, with the greatest disparity in clinical trials of musculoskeletal disease and trauma (11.3% difference between representation and proportion of DALYs). Clinical trials of preventive interventions were associated with greater female enrollment (adjusted relative difference, 8.48%; 95% CI, 3.77%-13.00%). Clinical trials in cardiology (adjusted relative difference, -18.68%; 95% CI, -22.87% to -14.47%) and pediatrics (adjusted relative difference, -20.47%; 95% CI, -25.77% to -15.16%) had the greatest negative association with female enrollment. In this study, sex differences in clinical trials varied by clinical trial disease category, with male and female participants underrepresented in different medical fields. Although sex equity has progressed, these findings suggest that sex bias in clinical trials persists within medical fields, with negative consequences for the health of all individuals.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Cost of Illness</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gender differences</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Logistic Models</subject><subject>Online Only</subject><subject>Original Investigation</subject><subject>Public Health</subject><subject>Research Subjects - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Sex Factors</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>2574-3805</issn><issn>2574-3805</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><recordid>eNpdUV1v1DAQtBCIVkf_ArLghZe7-it2wgNSe7QUqRJIbZ-tTbIBH4592Alw_x5fW6rSp11rZmdnPYS84WzFGePHGxgh4PQ7ph9xi2ElmOArLo1qnpFDURm1lDWrnj_qD8hRzhvGmGBcNrp6SQ6k4kryRhySdBLA77LLNA70HEfwSM9Cit6PGCYKoadfIU2uc1so7yv8Q9sdPZ1Tj2E_8tFlhIzUBXpzRdfeBdeBp9fJgc_0tBjFQhRl-61WcctekRdDAfHovi7IzfnZ9fpiefnl0-f1yeUSlJHTUsqhBynampsWtYShN1JXTek5drrXsgC1QKMEGBgahIGZrlOsrZGhGKRckA93utu5HbHvyj0JvN0mN0La2QjO_o8E991-i79sLbjimhWBd_cCKf6cMU92dLlD70sAcc5WVEoqJU0pC_L2CXUT51S-trC0Lj4lM7qw3t-xuhRzTjg8mOHM7tO1T9K1-3Ttbbpl-PXjcx5G_2Up_wI57KUh</recordid><startdate>20210601</startdate><enddate>20210601</enddate><creator>Steinberg, Jecca R</creator><creator>Turner, Brandon E</creator><creator>Weeks, Brannon T</creator><creator>Magnani, Christopher J</creator><creator>Wong, Bonnie O</creator><creator>Rodriguez, Fatima</creator><creator>Yee, Lynn M</creator><creator>Cullen, Mark R</creator><general>American Medical Association</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210601</creationdate><title>Analysis of Female Enrollment and Participant Sex by Burden of Disease in US Clinical Trials Between 2000 and 2020</title><author>Steinberg, Jecca R ; Turner, Brandon E ; Weeks, Brannon T ; Magnani, Christopher J ; Wong, Bonnie O ; Rodriguez, Fatima ; Yee, Lynn M ; Cullen, Mark R</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a473t-33fda32b817be63afd73659be61ec6d6381782e742a7af9eaf07cc40b8e0e2f33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Cost of Illness</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gender differences</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Logistic Models</topic><topic>Online Only</topic><topic>Original Investigation</topic><topic>Public Health</topic><topic>Research Subjects - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Sex Factors</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Steinberg, Jecca R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Turner, Brandon E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weeks, Brannon T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Magnani, Christopher J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wong, Bonnie O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rodriguez, Fatima</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yee, Lynn M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cullen, Mark R</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>JAMA network open</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Steinberg, Jecca R</au><au>Turner, Brandon E</au><au>Weeks, Brannon T</au><au>Magnani, Christopher J</au><au>Wong, Bonnie O</au><au>Rodriguez, Fatima</au><au>Yee, Lynn M</au><au>Cullen, Mark R</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Analysis of Female Enrollment and Participant Sex by Burden of Disease in US Clinical Trials Between 2000 and 2020</atitle><jtitle>JAMA network open</jtitle><addtitle>JAMA Netw Open</addtitle><date>2021-06-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>4</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>e2113749</spage><epage>e2113749</epage><pages>e2113749-e2113749</pages><issn>2574-3805</issn><eissn>2574-3805</eissn><abstract>Although female representation has increased in clinical trials, little is known about how clinical trial representation compares with burden of disease or is associated with clinical trial features, including disease category. To describe the rate of sex reporting (ie, the presence of clinical trial data according to sex), compare the female burden of disease with the female proportion of clinical trial enrollees, and investigate the associations of disease category and clinical trial features with the female proportion of clinical trial enrollees. This cross-sectional study included descriptive analyses and logistic and generalized linear regression analyses with a logit link. Data were downloaded from the Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov database for all studies registered between March 1, 2000, and March 9, 2020. Enrollment was compared with data from the 2016 Global Burden of Disease database. Of 328 452 clinical trials, 70 095 were excluded because they had noninterventional designs, 167 936 because they had recruitment sites outside the US, 69 084 because they had no reported results, 1003 because they received primary funding from the US military, and 314 because they had unclear sex categories. A total of 20 020 interventional studies enrolling approximately 5.11 million participants met inclusion criteria and were divided into those with and without data on participant sex. The primary exposure variable was clinical trial disease category. Secondary exposure variables included funding, study design, and study phase. Sex reporting and female proportion of participants in clinical trials. Among 20 020 clinical trials from 2000 to 2020, 19 866 studies (99.2%) reported sex, and 154 studies (0.8%) did not. Clinical trials in the fields of oncology (46% of disability-adjusted life-years [DALYs]; 43% of participants), neurology (56% of DALYs; 53% of participants), immunology (49% of DALYs; 46% of participants), and nephrology (45% of DALYs; 42% of participants) had the lowest female representation relative to corresponding DALYs. Male participants were underrepresented in 8 disease categories, with the greatest disparity in clinical trials of musculoskeletal disease and trauma (11.3% difference between representation and proportion of DALYs). Clinical trials of preventive interventions were associated with greater female enrollment (adjusted relative difference, 8.48%; 95% CI, 3.77%-13.00%). Clinical trials in cardiology (adjusted relative difference, -18.68%; 95% CI, -22.87% to -14.47%) and pediatrics (adjusted relative difference, -20.47%; 95% CI, -25.77% to -15.16%) had the greatest negative association with female enrollment. In this study, sex differences in clinical trials varied by clinical trial disease category, with male and female participants underrepresented in different medical fields. Although sex equity has progressed, these findings suggest that sex bias in clinical trials persists within medical fields, with negative consequences for the health of all individuals.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Medical Association</pub><pmid>34143192</pmid><doi>10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.13749</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2574-3805
ispartof JAMA network open, 2021-06, Vol.4 (6), p.e2113749-e2113749
issn 2574-3805
2574-3805
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8214160
source Publicly Available Content Database (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)
subjects Adult
Clinical trials
Cost of Illness
Cross-Sectional Studies
Female
Gender differences
Humans
Logistic Models
Online Only
Original Investigation
Public Health
Research Subjects - statistics & numerical data
Sex Factors
United States
title Analysis of Female Enrollment and Participant Sex by Burden of Disease in US Clinical Trials Between 2000 and 2020
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T05%3A21%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Analysis%20of%20Female%20Enrollment%20and%20Participant%20Sex%20by%20Burden%20of%20Disease%20in%20US%20Clinical%20Trials%20Between%202000%20and%202020&rft.jtitle=JAMA%20network%20open&rft.au=Steinberg,%20Jecca%20R&rft.date=2021-06-01&rft.volume=4&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=e2113749&rft.epage=e2113749&rft.pages=e2113749-e2113749&rft.issn=2574-3805&rft.eissn=2574-3805&rft_id=info:doi/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.13749&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2667823076%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a473t-33fda32b817be63afd73659be61ec6d6381782e742a7af9eaf07cc40b8e0e2f33%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2667823076&rft_id=info:pmid/34143192&rfr_iscdi=true