ReviewCardiology research2012
Age- and Gender-Normalized Coronary Incidence and Mortality Risks in Primary and Secondary Prevention.
Review in Cardiology research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bridging Care Gaps for Older Women Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Interventional cardiology clinics · 2025Review
- Incidence and risk factors for recurrent cardiovascular disease in middle-eastern adults: a retrospective study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2019Article
- Serum uric Acid as a marker of coronary calcification in patients with asymptomatic coronary artery disease with preserved left ventricular pump function.Cardiology research and practice · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Epidemiologic differences in ischemic heart disease incidence between women and men remain largely unexplained. The reasons of women's "protection" against coronary artery disease (CAD) are not still clear. However, there are subsets more likely to die of a first myocardial infarction. The purpose of this review is to underline different treatment strategies between genders and describe the role of classical and novel factors defined to evaluate CAD risk and mortality, aimed at assessing applicability and relevance for primary and secondary prevention. Women and men present different age-related risk patterns: it should be important to understand whether standard factors may index CAD risk, including mortality, in different ways and/or whether specific factors might be targeted gender-wise. Take home messages include: HDL-cholesterol levels, higher in pre-menopausal women than in men, are more strictly related to CAD. The same is true for high triglycerides and Lp(a). HDL-cholesterol levels are inversely related to incidence and mortality. In primary prevention the role of statins is not completely ascertained in women although in secondary prevention these agents are equally effective in both genders. Weight and glycemic control are effective to reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality in women from middle to older age. Blood pressure is strongly and directly related to CVD mortality, from middle to older age, particularly in diabetic and over weighted women. Kidney dysfunction, defined using UAE and eGFR predicts primary CVD incidence and risk in both genders. In secondary prediction, kidney dysfunction predicts sudden death in women in conjunction with left ventricular ejection fraction evaluation. Serum uric acid does not differentiate gender-related CVD incidences, although it increases with age. Age-related differences between genders have been related to loss of ovarian function traditionally and to lower iron stores more recently. QT interval, physiologically longer in women than men, may be an index of arrhythmic risk in patients with mitral valve prolapse and increased circulating levels of catecholamines. However, there are no large population-based studies to assess this. In conjunction with novel parameters, such as inflammatory markers and reproductive hormones, classical risk score in women may be implemented in the future.
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.