ReviewPopulation health management2015
The diagnosis of CAD in women: addressing the unmet need - a report from the national expert roundtable meeting.
Review in Population health management, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A multistakeholder panel comprising experts in the fields of clinical cardiology, medical technology innovation, women's health research and policy analysis, personalized medicine, payers (including self-insured employers), patient advocacy, and health economics was convened at the Heart House in Washington, DC. The following points emerged as key concepts: (1) Diagnostic challenges in the evaluation of women with symptoms suggestive of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) result from: (a) presentation with atypical symptoms and lower pretest probability of disease compared to men, (b) fatty tissue and breast tissue attenuation on cardiac imaging leading to false positive findings, and (c) the presence of microvascular CAD. (2) Diagnostic challenges lead to both over-testing of low-risk women and under-testing of high-risk women. (3) Efforts should be directed toward increasing clinician, clinical professional society, and consumer awareness and understanding of sex-specific differences between men and women in the pathophysiology of CAD. (4) Multiple health care stakeholders should be made aware of new advances in genomic approaches to address the challenges of diagnosing obstructive CAD; specifically, the Corus CAD gene expression test, which was shown to have high sensitivity and negative predictive value in a recent clinical trial. As such, it has promise as a tool to help clinicians to rule out obstructive CAD as a cause of a patient's symptoms. (Population Health Management 2015;18:86-92).
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.