Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen · 2026
[The use of 'Caucasian' in medical studies: Ethical, legal and scientific perspectives using the example of the ophthalmological Low-dose AtropIne for Myopia Control in Children (AIM) study].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kaymak Hakan, Seitz Berthold
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The term "Caucasian" is still used to describe study populations in medical publications, often without explicit definition or transparent operationalization. This can limit reproducibility, comparability, and external validity. As a case example, we use the first German clinical atropine trial for myopia control in children, the Low-dose AtropIne for Myopia Control in Children (AIM) study.
METHODS: Commentary based on an analysis of publicly available documents related to the AIM trial (protocol/published information) and a structured literature and policy/statement review (PubMed and relevant guidance documents) on race/ethnicity reporting, the use of "Caucasian", and fair participant selection.
RESULTS: Using the first German clinical atropine trial for myopia control in children (AIM) as a case example, we show that the target population is described as "Caucasian", while the definition and assignment procedures are not transparent in public materials. This affects interpretability and transferability, especially when cohorts are used for follow-up analyses (e.g., genetics).
DISCUSSION: We discuss scientific (definition/validity), ethical (fair selection), legal (equal treatment and discrimination risks), and regulatory (target population/transferability) implications. We emphasize the need to distinguish social categories from geographic recruitment and from biological hypotheses, which require appropriate variables and explicit justification.
CONCLUSION: Population descriptors such as "Caucasian" should only be used when they are defined, justified, and transparently operationalized. More precise reporting standards and alternatives are available.
METHODS: Commentary based on an analysis of publicly available documents related to the AIM trial (protocol/published information) and a structured literature and policy/statement review (PubMed and relevant guidance documents) on race/ethnicity reporting, the use of "Caucasian", and fair participant selection.
RESULTS: Using the first German clinical atropine trial for myopia control in children (AIM) as a case example, we show that the target population is described as "Caucasian", while the definition and assignment procedures are not transparent in public materials. This affects interpretability and transferability, especially when cohorts are used for follow-up analyses (e.g., genetics).
DISCUSSION: We discuss scientific (definition/validity), ethical (fair selection), legal (equal treatment and discrimination risks), and regulatory (target population/transferability) implications. We emphasize the need to distinguish social categories from geographic recruitment and from biological hypotheses, which require appropriate variables and explicit justification.
CONCLUSION: Population descriptors such as "Caucasian" should only be used when they are defined, justified, and transparently operationalized. More precise reporting standards and alternatives are available.