ReviewClinical cardiology2018
Taking cardiology clinical trials to the next level: A call to action.
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 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Estimating heterogeneity of physical function treatment response to caloric restriction among older adults with obesity.PloS one · 2022Trial
- Assessing health in aging male and female mice: does cardiac function dictate frailty or physical resilience?The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2026Article
- Article
- Drp1-associated genes implicated in sepsis survival.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
- The impact of gender and sex on diagnosis, treatment outcomes and health-related quality of life in patients with axial spondyloarthritis.Clinical rheumatology · 2022Review
- Clinical Phenotypes of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction to Select Preclinical Animal Models.JACC. Basic to translational science · 2022Review
- Illuminating the Mechanisms Underlying Sex Differences in Cardiovascular Disease.Circulation research · 2022Review
- Research on Women's Health: Ready for the Future.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2022Article
- Digital health RCT interventions for cardiovascular disease risk reduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Health and technology · 2022Review
- Association of Sex or Race With the Effect of Weight Loss on Physical Function: A Secondary Analysis of 8 Randomized Clinical Trials.JAMA network open · 2020Article
- Sex as a Biological Variable: A 5-Year Progress Report and Call to Action.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2020Article
- Enrollment and Retention of Men and Women in Health Services Research and Development Trials.Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health · 2019Article
- Sex-Gender Variable: Methodological Recommendations for Increasing Scientific Value of Clinical Studies.Cells · 2019Review
- Excitation-Contraction Coupling Time is More Sensitive in Evaluating Cardiac Systolic Function.Chinese medical journal · 2018Article
- Taking cardiology clinical trials to the next level: A call to action.Clinical cardiology · 2018Review
- Article
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
Physicians previously perceived heart disease to be a man's disease; yet, since 1984, more women have died of ischemic heart disease. Because women who develop obstructive coronary heart disease and heart failure tend to do so 10 years later than men, cardiology clinical trials that use arbitrary age cutoffs or exclusion criteria based on comorbidities and polypharmacy often limit the pool of potential participants to a greater extent for women. Issues related to trial design and insufficient accounting for female-predominant disease patterns have contributed to low rates of enrollment of women in certain domains of cardiology research. Accordingly, women do not benefit from as rich an evidence base for cardiology as men. Here, we review major sex differences in heart disease and discuss areas of cardiology research in which women have been underrepresented. Considering the widespread sex differences in cardiovascular structure and function, it is important to include balanced numbers of women and men in cardiovascular clinical trials. Beyond inclusion, sex-specific reporting is also essential. Moreover, with ongoing developments of clinical-trial methodology, it is imperative to seek innovative ways to learn as much as possible about how interventions behave in women and men. Adaptive trials are specifically identified as promising opportunities to consider sex-based analyses at interim stages, allowing sex-specific flexibility as these trials unfold. Finally, we emphasize the importance of factoring sex as a biological variable into the design, analysis, and reporting of preclinical research, because this research critically informs the design and execution of clinical trials.
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.