ReviewCJC open2022
Sex Differences in Implantation and Outcomes of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Real-World Settings: A Systematic Review of Cohort Studies.
Review in CJC open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Relationship between sex, body size, and cardiac resynchronization therapy benefit: A patient-level meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Heart rhythm · 2024Pooled it
- Sex-Based Differences in Left Bundle Branch Capture During Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2026Article
- Pacemaker Status and 5-Year Mortality After TAVI: A Sex-Specific Analysis.European journal of clinical investigation · 2026Article
- Cardiac contractility modulation in heart failure management: unraveling molecular mechanisms to improve patient selection in heart failure management.Heart failure reviews · 2026Review
- Sex Specific Outcomes With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients With Symptomatic Heart Failure Having Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.American journal of medicine open · 2025Review
- 2025 Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics: A Report of US and Global Data From the American Heart Association.Circulation · 2025Review
- Optimizing outcomes from cardiac resynchronization therapy: what do recent data and insights say?Expert review of cardiovascular therapy · 2024Review
- Review
- Saving women's hearts: Improving outcomes with prevention & policy.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2023Article
- Mitral Regurgitation in Female Patients: Sex Differences and Disparities.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & InterventionsReview
- Sex-related differences in heart failure patients: physiological mechanisms of cardiovascular ageing and evidence-based sex-specific medical therapies.Therapeutic advances in cardiovascular diseaseReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvidence from randomized trials is conflicting on the effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) by sex, and differences in access are unknown. We examined sex differences in the implantation rates and outcomes in patients treated with CRT using cohort studies.
methodsWe followed a pre-specified protocol (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews [PROSPERO]: CRD42020204804). MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for cohort studies from January 2000 to June 2020 that evaluated the response to CRT in patients ≥ 18 years old and reported sex-specific information in any language.
resultsWe included 97 studies (1,172,654 men and 486,553 women). Men received CRT more frequently than women (median ratio, 3.16; 25th to 75th interquartile range, 2.48-3.62). In the unadjusted analysis, men had a greater long-term all-cause mortality rate after CRT, compared with women (hazard ratio [HR], 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-1.63;
conclusionsWe found in this large meta-analysis that men were more often implanted with CRT than women, yet men had a higher long-term all-cause mortality following CRT, compared with women, and smaller improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction. Reasons for this difference in implantation rates of CRT in real-world practice need to be investigated.
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.