ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2012
Sex-related differences in prognosis after myocardial infarction: changes from 1978 to 2007.
Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gender differences in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a substudy of the IABP-SHOCK II-trial.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2015Trial
- The Generation R Study: Biobank update 2015.European journal of epidemiology · 2014Article
- Early origins of chronic obstructive lung diseases across the life course.European journal of epidemiology · 2014Review
- The Rotterdam Study: 2014 objectives and design update.European journal of epidemiology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Women with myocardial infarction (MI) have shown a 28-day survival disadvantage compared with men. However, results were less consistent when considering long-term mortality in 28-day survivors. The aim was to estimate the trends for sex-related differences in the three endpoints considered for this study: (1) 28-day mortality or severe ventricular dysfunction (acute pulmonary oedema or cardiogenic shock) during the hospital stay, (2) 28-day mortality and (3) two-year cardiovascular mortality or non-fatal MI in 28-day survivors after a first MI. A cohort of 3,982 consecutive patients with first Q-wave MI admitted to a university tertiary reference hospital between 1978 and 2007 was followed for 2 years. Short-term prognosis improved in women over the studied period; similar rates were observed in both sexes in the 2000s. After adjusting for age, co-morbidities and anterior location of MI, female sex had an odds ratio=1.71 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34-2.17) of short-term severe MI or death over the studied period. Overall, sex differences in long-term prognosis remained similar over the studied period (hazard ratio=1.40; 95% CI 1.02-1.91). In conclusion, short-term prognosis improved over the past 30 years for first Q-wave MI patients, becoming similar for both men and women in the most recent decade. Long-term prognosis did not improve in either men or women, indicating that secondary prevention should be reinforced to achieve consistent reductions in the number of cardiovascular events.
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.