ArticleBMC family practice2011
Gender bias revisited: new insights on the differential management of chest pain.
Article in BMC family practice, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- [Recruitment of pediatric practices for an intervention study: strategies, implementation, and insights from the Intervention Study to Increase HPV Vaccination Coverage in Germany (InveSt HPV)].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026Article
- Determinants of referral for suspected coronary artery disease: a qualitative study based on decision thresholds.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- [High patient unawareness for chronic kidney disease even in later stages - but why is it more frequent in women than in men?]Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2022Article
- Independent medical evaluation of general practitioners' follow-up of sick-listed patients: a cross-sectional study in Norway.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Observational
- Managing chest pain patients in general practice: an interview-based study.BMC family practice · 2018Article
- Primary health care use from the perspective of gender and morbidity burden.BMC women's health · 2014Observational
- Use of exercise tests in primary care: importance for referral decisions and possible bias in the decision process; a prospective observational study.BMC family practice · 2014Observational
- Sex differences in independent factors associated with coronary artery disease.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2014Article
- Low-educated women with chronic pain were less often selected to multidisciplinary rehabilitation programs.PloS one · 2014Article
- Anxiety associations with cardiac symptoms, angiographic disease severity, and healthcare utilization: the NHLBI-sponsored Women's Ischemia Syndrome Evaluation.International journal of cardiology · 2013Article
- Clinical implications of the Women's Ischemia Syndrome Evaluation: inter-relationships between symptoms, psychosocial factors and cardiovascular outcomes.Women's health (London, England) · 2013Review
- Development and validation of a clinical prediction rule for chest wall syndrome in primary care.BMC family practice · 2012Article
- Access to rehabilitation: patient perceptions of inequalities in access to specialty pain rehabilitation from a gender and intersectional perspective.Global health actionArticle
- Sex/gender bias in the management of chest pain in ambulatory care.Women's health (London, England)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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChest pain is a common complaint and reason for consultation in primary care. Few data exist from a primary care setting whether male patients are treated differently than female patients. We examined whether there are gender differences in general physicians' (GPs) initial assessment and subsequent management of patients with chest pain, and how these differences can be explained
methodsWe conducted a prospective study with 1212 consecutive chest pain patients. The study was conducted in 74 primary care offices in Germany from October 2005 to July 2006. After a follow up period of 6 months, an independent interdisciplinary reference panel reviewed clinical data of every patient and decided about the etiology of chest pain at the time of patient recruitment (delayed type-reference standard). We adjusted gender differences of six process indicators for different models.
resultsGPs tended to assume that CHD is the cause of chest pain more often in male patients and referred more men for an exercise test (women 4.1%, men 7.3%, p = 0.02) and to the hospital (women 2.9%, men 6.6%, p < 0.01). These differences remained when adjusting for age and cardiac risk factors but ceased to exist after adjusting for the typicality of chest pain.
conclusionsWhile observed gender differences can not be explained by differences in age, CHD prevalence, and underlying risk factors, the less typical symptom presentation in women might be an underlying factor. However this does not seem to result in suboptimal management in women but rather in overuse of services for men. We consider our conclusions rather hypothesis generating and larger studies will be necessary to prove our proposed model.
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.