ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2004
Acute coronary syndromes in women: is treatment different? Should it be?
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Impact of Gender and Race When Using the GRACE ACS Score to Predict Mortality.HCA healthcare journal of medicine · 2023Article
- Gender-based difference in early mortality among patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: insights from Kermanshah STEMI Registry.Journal of cardiovascular and thoracic research · 2020Article
- Sex Difference in Risk Factors, GRACE Scores, and Management among Post-Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients in Sri Lanka.Cardiology research and practice · 2020Article
- Disparities in Cardiovascular Care and Outcomes for Women From Racial/Ethnic Minority Backgrounds.Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine · 2020Review
- Gender Disparities in Preoperative Resource Use for Wrist Arthroscopy.Plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2018Article
- Gender-based differences in the management and prognosis of acute coronary syndrome in Korea.Yonsei medical journal · 2011Article
- Gender differences in the surgical management and early clinical outcome of coronary artery disease: Single centre experience.Journal of the Saudi Heart Association · 2010Article
- Gender differences in the treatment of non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.Clinical cardiology · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The vast majority of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) trials conducted over the past two decades support the view that women have persistently higher mortality and morbidity despite the introduction of new medical therapies and devices. Even after adjustment for older age, higher prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, heart failure, smaller vessel size, and late presentation, some studies still point to a persistent sex disadvantage. Even in contemporary practice, women continue to have longer delays in presentation and treatment. Selection bias in unstable angina/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI) trials allows inclusion of large numbers of women with clinically insignificant coronary disease and may mistakenly shift results toward apparent benefit of a less aggressive approach. This bias causes further difficulty in determining efficacy and safety of new antithrombotic agents such as direct thrombin inhibitors and glycoprotein IIb/IIa inhibitors across the spectrum of ACS. In trials of UA/NSTEMI, use of objective evidence of ischemia such as elevated troponin levels, would greatly assist the determination of efficacy and benefit in women. Enrollment of more women in clinical trials and timely sex-specific analysis would promote a better understanding of the role of female gender in ACS and would facilitate better care of all patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.