To promote health equity within the United States (US), randomized clinical trials should strive for unbiased representation. Thus, there is impetus to identify demographic disparities overall and by disease category in US clinical trial recruitment, by trial phase, level of masking, and multi-center status, relative to national demographics. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov, between 01/01/2008 to 12/30/2019. Clinical trials (N = 5,388) were identified based on the following inclusion criteria: study type, location, phase, and participant age. Each clinical trial was independently screened by two researchers. Data was pooled using a random-effects model. Median proportions for gender, race, and ethnicity of each trial were compared to the 2010 US Census proportions, matched by age. A second analysis was performed comparing gender, race, and ethnicity proportions by trial phase, multi-institutional status, quality, masking, and study start year. 2977 trials met inclusion criteria (participants, n = 607,181) for data extraction. 36% of trials reported ethnicity and 53% reported race. Three trials (0.10%) included transgender participants (n = 5). Compared with 2010 US Census data, females (48.3%, 95% CI 47.2–49.3, p < 0.0001), Hispanics (11.6%, 95% CI 10.8–12.4, p < 0.0001), American Indians and Alaskan Natives (AIAN, 0.19%, 95% CI 0.15–0.23, p < 0.0001), Asians (1.27%, 95% CI 1.13–1.42, p < 0.0001), Whites (77.6%, 95% CI 76.4–78.8, p < 0.0001), and multiracial participants (0.25%, 95% CI 0.21–0.31, p < 0.0001) were under-represented, while Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders (0.76%, 95% CI 0.71–0.82, p < 0.0001) and Blacks (17.0%, 95% CI 15.9–18.1, p < 0.0001) were over-represented. Inequitable representation was mirrored in analysis by phase, institutional status, quality assessment, and level of masking. Between 2008 to 2019 representation improved for only females and Hispanics. Analysis stratified by 44 disease categories (i.e., psychiatric, obstetric, neurological, etc.) exhibited significant yet varied disparities, with Asians, AIAN, and multiracial individuals the most under-represented. These results demonstrate disparities in US randomized clinical trial recruitment between 2008 to 2019, with the reporting of demographic data and representation of most minorities not having improved over time.

Background: Obesity's risk increases for low-income, female, young, and Black patients. By extrapolation, idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH)—a disease associated with body mass index—would potentially display socioeconomic and demographic disparities. Methods: IIH incidence (per 100,000) was investigated with respect to sex, age, income, residence, and race/ethnicity, by querying the largest United States (US) healthcare administrative dataset (1997–2016), the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample. Results: Annual national incidence (with 25th and 75th quartiles) for IIH was 1.15 (0.91, 1.44). Females had an incidence of 1.97 (1.48, 2.48), larger (p = 0.0000038) than males at 0.36 (0.26, 0.38). Regarding age, largest incidence was among those 18–44 years old at 2.47 (1.84, 2.73). Low-income patients had an incidence of 1.56 (1.47, 1.82), larger (p = 0.00024) than the 1.21 (1.01, 1.36) of the middle/high. No differences (χ² = 4.67, p = 0.097) were appreciated between urban (1.44; 1.40, 1.61), suburban (1.30; 1.09, 1.40), or rural (1.46; 1.40, 1.48) communities. For race/ethnicity (χ² = 57, p = 2.57 × 10⁻¹²), incidence was largest for Blacks (2.05; 1.76, 2.74), followed by Whites (1.04; 0.79, 1.41), Hispanics (0.67; 0.57, 0.94), and Asian/Pacific Islanders (0.16; 0.11, 0.19). Year-to-year, incidence rose for all strata subsets except Asian/Pacific Islanders (τ = −0.84, p = 0.00000068). Conclusion: IIH demonstrates several sociodemographic disparities. Specifically, incidences are larger for those low-income, Black, 18–44 years old, or female, while annually increasing for all subsets, except Asian/Pacific Islanders. Hence, IIH differentially afflicts the US population, yielding in healthcare inequalities.

The clinical indications and added value of obtaining MRI in the acute phase of spinal cord injury (SCI) remain controversial. This review aims to critically evaluate evidence regarding the role of MRI to influence decision-making and outcomes in acute SCI. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to PRISMA methodology to identify studies that address six key questions (KQs) regarding diagnostic accuracy, frequency of abnormal findings, frequency of altered decision-making, optimal timing, and differences in outcomes related to obtaining an MRI in acute SCI. A total of 32 studies were identified that addressed one or more KQs. MRI showed no adverse events in 156 patients (five studies) and frequently identified cord compression (70%, 12 studies), disc herniation (43%, 16 studies), ligamentous injury (39%, 13 studies), and epidural hematoma (10%, two studies), with good diagnostic accuracy (seven comparative studies) except for fracture detection. MRI findings often altered management, including timing of surgery (78%, three studies), decision to operate (36%, 15 studies), and surgical approach (29%, nine studies). MRI may also be useful to determine the need for instrumentation (100%, one study), which levels to decompress (100%, one study), and if reoperation is needed (34%, two studies). The available literature consistently concluded that MRI was useful prior to surgical treatment (13 studies) and after surgery to assess decompression (two studies), but utility before/after closed reduction of cervical dislocations was unclear (three studies). One study showed improved outcomes with an MRI-based protocol but had a high risk of bias. Heterogeneity was high for most findings (I² > 0.75). MRI is safe and frequently identifies findings alter clinical management in acute SCI, although direct evidence of its impact on outcomes is lacking. MRI should be performed before and after surgery, when feasible, to facilitate improved clinical decision-making. However, further research is needed to determine its optimal timing, effect on outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and utility before and after closed reduction.

Gauging medical education quality has always remained challenging. Many studies have examined predictors of standardized exam performance; however, data sets do not distinguish by institution or curriculum. Our objective is to present a summary of variables associated with the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores, and thus identify institutions (and therefore curriculums) which deviate from trend lines by producing higher USMLE scores despite having lower entrance grade point averages and medical college admissions test (MCAT) scores. Data was obtained from U.S. News and World Report’s 2014 evaluation of allopathic U.S. medical schools. A univariate analysis was performed first for each variable using two sample t-test or Wilcoxon rank sum test for categorical variables, and Pearson or Spearman correlation coefficients for continuous variables. A multivariable linear regression model was developed to identify the factors contributing to USMLE scores. All statistical analyses were two-sided and performed using SAS software version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Univariate analysis reveals a significant association between USMLE Step 1 and 2 scores with medical college admissions test scores, grade point averages, school type (private vs. public), full-time faculty-to-student ratio, National Institute of Health funds, residency director assessment score, peer assessment score, and class size. Of these nine variables, MCAT scores and Step 1 scores display the strongest correlation (corr = 0.72, P < .0001). Multivariable analysis also supports a significant association between MCAT scores and Step scores, meanwhile National Institute of Health funding size demonstrates a negative correlation with USMLE Step 2 scores. Although MCAT scores and National Institute of Health funds are significantly associated with USMLE performance, six outlier institutions were identified, producing higher USMLE scores than trend line predictions. Outlier institutions produce USMLE scores that do not follow expected trend lines. Their performance might be explainable by differences in curriculum. Having identified these institutions, their curriculums can be further studied to determine what factors enhance student learning.

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a devasting condition with no reliable treatment. Spina bifida is the most common cause of congenital SCI. Cell-based therapies using mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCS) have been largely utilized in SCI. Several clinical trials for acquired SCI use adult tissue-derived MSC sources, including bone-marrow, adipose, and umbilical cord tissues. The first stem/stromal cell clinical trial for spina bifida is currently underway (NCT04652908). The trial uses early gestational placental-derived mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (PMSCs) during the fetal repair of myelomeningocele. PMSCs have been shown to exhibit unique neuroprotective, angiogenic, and antioxidant properties, all which are promising applications for SCI. This review will summarize the unique properties and current applications of PMSCs and discuss their therapeutic role for acquired SCI.