Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35286662›Full record

ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2022

ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Sex Differences in Incidence, Etiology, Treatment, and Outcomes.

Tayyab Shah, Sohum Kapadia, Alexandra J Lansky, Cindy L Grines

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current cardiology reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Reassess Hospital Costs and Mortality Between Myocardial Infarction With and Without ST-Segment Elevation in a Modern Context.Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc · 2024
    Article
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

4 authors.

Tayyab ShahYale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Sohum KapadiaYale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
Alexandra J LanskyYale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Cindy L GrinesNorthside Hospital Cardiovascular Institute, Atlanta, GA, USA. cindy.grines@northside.com.ORCID 0000-0003-1653-6443

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAlthough there have been marked improvements in the standard of care for treatment of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, women, especially younger women, continue to have significantly worse outcomes than men. RECENT

findingsThis review highlights the current sex differences in presentation, etiology, treatment, and outcomes among these patients in order to make providers aware of the heterogeneous entities that cause ST-elevation myocardial infarction particularly in women and of disparities in treatment that lead to poorer outcomes in women. Furthermore, it emphasizes evidence-based strategies including standardized protocols for early revascularization, mechanical circulatory support, and access methodology that can reduce sex-based disparities in treatments and outcomes.

Indexed as

Percutaneous Coronary InterventionST Elevation Myocardial InfarctionFemaleHumansIncidenceMaleRisk FactorsSex CharacteristicsSex FactorsTreatment OutcomeCardiogenic shockPercutaneous coronary interventionSexST-segment elevation myocardial infarctionWomen

Identifiers

PMID35286662

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.