ArticleArrhythmia & electrophysiology review2015
Sex Differences in Utilisation and Response to Implantable Device Therapy.
Article in Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Discrimination of sustained VT in structural heart disease using LGE-CMR and computational simulation: moving beyond LVEF.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Position Statement on Ischemic Heart Disease - Women-Centered Health Care - 2023.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2023Article
- Gender medicine: effects of sex and gender on cardiovascular disease manifestation and outcomes.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2023Review
- Inequality between women and men in ICD implantation.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2022Article
- Sex-Specific Differences in Ventricular Remodeling and Response After Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.The American journal of cardiology · 2022Article
- Review
- Sex and Gender Differences in Heart Failure.International journal of heart failure · 2020Review
- Association of sex, age and education level with patient reported outcomes in atrial fibrillation.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2019Article
- Unsettled Issues and Future Directions for Research on Cardiovascular Diseases in Women.Korean circulation journal · 2018Review
- Causes of Differences in The Uptake of Cardiac Implantation Electronic Devices in Slovenia in Comparison To Other Countries.Zdravstveno varstvo · 2018Article
- Cardiac implantable electrical devices in women.Clinical cardiology · 2018Review
- Sudden cardiac death and the role of postmortem genetic testing in unexplained cases.Indian pacing and electrophysiology journalReview
- Atrial Fibrillation Symptoms and Sex, Race, and Psychological Distress: A Literature Review.The Journal of cardiovascular nursingReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multiple studies have demonstrated that implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) provide significant mortality and morbidity benefits to eligible patients irrespective of gender. However, female patients are less likely to receive this life-saving therapy and are significantly under-represented in cardiac device trials. Various performance improvement programmes have proved that this gender disparity can be reduced and these therapies should be offered to all eligible patients regardless of sex. Efforts should be made to enrol more women in clinical trials and sex-specific analysis in medical device clinical studies should be encouraged. In this article we review the data on sex differences in clinical outcomes with ICDs and CRT and explore the reasons for this sex-based disparity.
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.