Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23750471›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of pharmacology2014

Sex-based differences in cardiac ischaemic injury and protection: therapeutic implications.

B Ostadal, P Ostadal

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in British journal of pharmacology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

56 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 94 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. An eNAMPT-neutralizing mAb reduces post-infarct myocardial fibrosis and left ventricular dysfunction.Biomedicine & pharmacotherapy = Biomedecine & pharmacotherapie · 2024
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

B OstadalInstitute of Physiology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic.
P Ostadal
Czech Academy of Sciences · CZNa Homolce Hospital · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ischaemic heart disease (IHD) is the most frequent cause of mortality among men and women. Many epidemiological studies have demonstrated that premenopausal women have a reduced risk for IHD compared with their male counterparts. The incidence of IHD in women increases after menopause, suggesting that IHD is related to declining oestrogen levels. Experimental observations have confirmed the results of epidemiological studies investigating sex-specific differences in cardiac tolerance to ischaemia. Female sex appears also to favourably influence cardiac remodelling after ischaemia/reperfusion injury. Furthermore, sex-related differences in ischaemic tolerance of the adult myocardium can be influenced by interventions during the early phases of ontogenetic development. Detailed mechanisms of these sex-related differences remain unknown; however, they involve the genomic and non-genomic effects of sex steroid hormones, particularly the oestrogens, which have been the most extensively studied. Although the protective effects of oestrogen have many potential therapeutic implications, clinical trials have shown that oestrogen replacement in postmenopausal women may actually increase the incidence of IHD. The results of these trials have illustrated the complexity underlying the mechanisms involved in sex-related differences in cardiac tolerance to ischaemia. Sex-related differences in cardiac sensitivity to ischaemia/reperfusion injury may also influence therapeutic strategies in women with acute coronary syndrome. Women undergo coronary intervention less frequently and a lower proportion of women receive evidence-based therapy compared with men. Although our understanding of this important topic has increased in recent years, there is an urgent need for intensive experimental and clinical research to develop female-specific therapeutic strategies. Only then we will be able to offer patients better evidence-based treatment, a better quality of life and lower mortality.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineAcute Coronary SyndromeAndrogensAnimalsCardiovascular AgentsDisease SusceptibilityEstrogensFemaleHeartHumansMaleMyocardial IschemiaMyocardial Reperfusion InjuryMyocardiumSex CharacteristicsAndrogensCardiovascular AgentsEstrogensacute coronary syndromecardioprotectionheartischaemia/reperfusion injuryoestrogensex differencestherapeutic implications

Identifiers

PMID23750471
PMCPMC3969071
OpenAlexW1504822816

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.