ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2010
Angina in women.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- A dynamic microsimulation of health outcomes in Mexico's aging population.The Gerontologist · 2025Article
- Sex Disparities in the Management, Outcomes, and Transfer of Patients Hospitalized for Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2024Article
- Time to presentation and mortality outcomes among patients with diabetes and acute myocardial infarction.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2024Article
- Impact of Bioactive Compounds in the Management of Various Inflammatory Diseases.Current pharmaceutical design · 2024Review
- Achieving Equity in Emergency Medicine Quality Measures Requires a Sex and Gender Lens.The Journal of emergency medicine · 2023Article
- Long-term outcomes in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients treated according to hospital visit time.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2022Article
- Sex-Based Considerations in the Evaluation of Chest Pain and Management of Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2020Review
- In-stent restenosis of drug-eluting stents: clinical presentation and outcomes in a real-world scenario.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2019Article
- Sex differences in cardiovascular disease - Impact on care and outcomes.Frontiers in neuroendocrinology · 2017Review
- Coronary heart disease in men and women: does 1 size fit all? No!Clinical cardiology · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Angina pectoris, the pain of myocardial ischemia, is the major initial and subsequent presentation of coronary disease in women. Angina in women is associated with more adverse morbidity, mortality, and quality-of-life outcomes than for men, despite women having less obstructive coronary artery disease and better left ventricular function. Women with chest pain and myocardial ischemia, in the absence of significant obstructive disease of the coronary arteries, have prominent morbidity and mortality outcomes; the postulated mechanism is microvascular disease. Women also have more non-chest pain manifestations of myocardial ischemia than men. These variables must be incorporated in assessments of optimal diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for myocardial ischemia in women.
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.