ReviewClinical cardiology2018
Cardiac implantable electrical devices in women.
Review in Clinical cardiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sex-specific short- and long-term outcomes in patients with leadless cardiac pacemakers.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Observational
- Sex and Gender Aspects in New-Onset Heart Failure Prognosis: A Review of Recent Advances.Current heart failure reports · 2025Review
- Sex Differences in Ventricular Arrhythmias and Adverse Outcomes Following Acute Myocardial Infarction.JACC. Advances · 2024Article
- The Appropriateness of Medical Devices Is Strongly Influenced by Sex and Gender.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Sex differences in patterns of referral and resource utilization in the cardiology clinic: an outpatient analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Long-Term, Single-Centre Observation of Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Article
- Cardiac implantable electrical devices in women.Clinical cardiology · 2018Review
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
Clinical trials have demonstrated the benefits of cardiac implantable electrical devices, which include pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), with respect to key clinical outcomes and survival. Women more often require permanent pacing for sick sinus syndrome, whereas atrioventricular block is more common in men. Women appear to have a higher incidence of complications with pacemaker implantation, as well as with ICD and CRT implantation. The indications for ICDs and CRT do not have any distinctions based on sex, and outcomes are comparable in men and women. In fact, women often seem to have better outcomes with CRT compared with men. Despite the demonstrated benefits of these devices, ICDs and CRT are underutilized in women. In this review, we explore sex differences in utilization, outcomes, and complications with pacemakers, ICDs, and CRT.
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.