Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30242521›Full record

ReviewCurrent treatment options in cardiovascular medicine2018

Sex Differences in the Management of Advanced Heart Failure.

Daniela R Crousillat, Nasrien E Ibrahim

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Sex Differences in Heart Failure: What Do We Know?Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Role of gender, age and BMI in prognosis of heart failure.European journal of preventive cardiology · 2020
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Daniela R CrousillatMassachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street GRB-800, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Nasrien E IbrahimMassachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street GRB-800, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. neibrahim@mgh.harvard.edu.
Massachusetts General Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewHeart failure (HF) is prevalent among women and remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Currently, 3 million women live with HF and the prevalence is projected to continue to increase. The purpose of this review is to highlight sex differences in the use and response to evidence-based pharmacological, device, and advanced HF therapies, as well as explore emerging areas of research in sex differences in the treatment of HF. RECENT

findingsUnder-representation of women in clinical HF trials has limited our understanding of sex-related differences in the treatment and outcomes of HF. Important sex differences exist in the use of evidence-based HF therapies and clinical response among women with HF. In general, women tend to obtain the same clinical benefit from evidence-based HF drug and device therapies, but the utilization rates of guideline-directed medical therapies remain poor compared to men. Future research efforts should focus on increasing the enrollment of women in HF trials to help gain helpful insight into sex-specific differences in treatment effects and subsequent clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

DisparitiesGenderHeart failureSexWomen

Identifiers

PMID30242521
OpenAlexW2892189326

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.