ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2016
Gender Disparities Across the Spectrum of Advanced Cardiac Therapies: Real or Imagined?
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2016. 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sex-based differences in referral of heart failure patients to outpatient clinics: a scoping review.ESC heart failure · 2022Article
- Economic Burden and Healthcare Resource Use for Thoracic Aortic Dissections and Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms-A Population-Based Cost-of-Illness Analysis.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2020Article
- Variation in cardiovascular disease care: an Australian cohort study on sex differences in receipt of coronary procedures.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Finally, Progress in Pulmonary Hypertension Associated with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction.American journal of respiratory cell and molecular biology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiovascular disease has been responsible for more deaths in women than in men each year since 1985. This review discusses federal laws that have influenced the inclusion of women in research and reporting sex-specific differences, then addresses gender differences and gender disparities in four areas of clinical cardiovascular medicine: coronary heart disease, valvular heart disease, electrophysiology, and heart failure. The prevalence of disease in women is highlighted, the clinical characteristics of women at the time of referral for advanced therapies are reviewed, and the clinical outcomes of women are discussed. With the emergence of new technology such as smaller devices and less invasive procedures, more women are being referred for advanced therapies. However, a gap in awareness and diagnosis remains, contributing to later referrals for women. Women who do undergo advanced therapies often have more comorbidities and worse outcomes than men. A call is made to increase awareness, educate healthcare providers, and report more sex-specific data to resolve these gender disparities.
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.