ArticleClinical cardiology2011
Primary prevention of coronary heart disease in men and women: does 1 size fit all? Yes!
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Coronary heart disease and mortality following a breast cancer diagnosis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of mortality in both women and men in the industrialized nations. Coronary heart disease (CHD) accounts for the single largest share of this toll in both sexes. Although it had long been known that the number 1 cause of death in men is CHD, it was determined only relatively recently that this was also true in women. Identification of the traditional risk factors (RFs) for CHD by the Framingham Heart Study and other investigations during the last 5 decades has provided the basis of preventive cardiology. These RFs can be considered as fixed or modifiable. Numerous epidemiologic and clinical studies have demonstrated that, with few exceptions, the major RFs that increase the hazard for CHD are the same for both men and women, whether fixed (age, sex, family history) or modified (lipids, blood pressure, smoking). A number of other RFs are under investigation and await confirmation in rigorous prospective studies. Even those conditions unique to women, which can predispose patients to CHD, such as polycystic ovaries and complications of pregnancy, act through provocation of the traditional RFs. Thus, the large body of evidence that supports the similarity of RFs for CHD in men and women provides a rational foundation for similar strategies of prevention in the 2 sexes.
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.