ReviewWorld journal of cardiology2021
Cardiogenic shock in the setting of acute myocardial infarction: Another area of sex disparity?
Review in World journal of cardiology, 2021. 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sex disparities in revascularization strategies and mortality in infarct-related cardiogenic shock.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Article
- Evaluating gender-based disparities in the outcomes of impella use in acute myocardial infarction patients with cardiogenic shock; insights from real-world global data.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- Review
- Sex Disparities in the Management, Outcomes, and Transfer of Patients Hospitalized for Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2024Article
- Women in interventional cardiology - patients' and operators' perspectives.Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 2023Article
- Operator-patient sex discordance and periprocedural outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (from the ORPKI Polish National Registry).Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 2023Article
- A bibliometric analysis of acute myocardial infarction in women from 2000 to 2022.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
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
Cardiogenic shock in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) carries significant morbidity and mortality, despite advances in pharmacological, mechanical and reperfusion therapies. Studies suggest that there is evidence of sex disparities in the risk profile, management, and outcomes of cardiogenic shock complicating AMI. Compared with men, women tend to have more comorbidities, greater variability in symptom presentation and are less likely to receive timely revascularization and mechanical circulatory support. These factors might explain why women tend to have worse outcomes. In this review, we highlight sex-based differences in the prevalence, management, and outcomes of cardiogenic shock due to AMI, and discuss potential ways to mitigate them.
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.