ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2020
Diagnostic and Management Dilemmas in Women Presenting with Acute Coronary Syndromes.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The prognostic role of remnant cholesterol in Asian menopausal women received percutaneous coronary intervention with acute coronary syndrome.Lipids in health and disease · 2024Article
- Performance of Prehospital ECG and Impact on Prehospital Service Time: Comparison between EMT-II and EMT-P Teams.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2024Article
- DANSPOT: A Multicenter Stepped-Wedge Cluster-Randomized Trial of the Reclassification of Acute Myocardial Infarction: Rationale and Study Design.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- Article
- Women, lipids, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: a call to action from the European Atherosclerosis Society.European heart journal · 2023Article
- Tokyo Trends.JACC. Asia · 2022Article
- Sex differences following percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass surgery for acute myocardial infarction.Biology of sex differences · 2022Article
- An analysis of neuroscience and psychiatry papers published from 2009 and 2019 outlines opportunities for increasing discovery of sex differences.Nature communications · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewTo summarize gender- and sex-specific differences in the presentation, diagnosis, management, and pathophysiology of women presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). RECENT
findingsSex differences exist in many aspects of ACS that impact the identification, treatment, and outcomes in women. There are delays in the initiation of care, under recognized diagnostic differences based on sex, and inconsistencies in the management of ACS in women compared with men, that ultimately impact outcomes. Additionally, women with ACS are more likely than men to present with non-obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), which appears to be due to diverse underlying pathophysiology. Women with ACS face diagnostic and treatment dilemmas from time of symptom onset to hospital discharge. Under-recognition, under-diagnosis, and under-treatment ultimately result in poorer outcomes in women. Underlying pathophysiologic differences in women require additional testing to elucidate underlying etiologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33037943What 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.