Evidence of gender bias when applying the new diagnostic criteria for myocardial infarction.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

1. The Influence of Sex on Cardiac Physiology and Cardiovascular Diseases.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2020
   Review
2. The Association between Trimethylamine N-Oxide and Its Predecessors Choline, L-Carnitine, and Betaine with Coronary Artery Disease and Artery Stenosis.Cardiology research and practice · 2020
   Article
3. Gender differences and determinants of health related quality of life in coronary patients: a follow-up study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2011
   Article
4. The hitchhiker's guide to research in clinical biochemistry.The Clinical biochemist. Reviews · 2010
   Article
5. Gender differences in the treatment of non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.Clinical cardiology · 2010
   Article

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.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as