ArticleHeart (British Cardiac Society)2022
Evaluation of the causes of sex disparity in heart failure trials.
Article in Heart (British Cardiac Society), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictive value of the serum sodium to log(D-dimer) ratio for the risk of all-cause death in patients with chronic heart failure with different ejection fractions.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) Diet, Incident Heart Failure and Its Associated Risk Factors in Australian Women.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Relationship between right heart catheterization and exercise testing in heart failure patients with and without pulmonary hypertension - cross-sectional study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Calming the Storm: Natural Language Processing Applied to Pulmonary Embolism Research.JACC. Advances · 2025Article
- State of precision medicine for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in a new therapeutic age.ESC heart failure · 2025Review
- Sex Differences in Heart Failure: A Step Forward.Interventional cardiology (London, England) · 2025Review
- Consistency of HFrEF treatment effect in underrepresented groups in randomized clinical trials.NPJ cardiovascular health · 2024Review
- Impact of Sex in the Incidence of Heart Failure in Patients with Chronic Coronary Syndrome.Current heart failure reports · 2024Review
- Sex Disparities in Cardiovascular Disease.Methodist DeBakey cardiovascular journal · 2024Review
- Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation in women with heart failure: a review of enrollment, adherence, and outcomes.Heart failure reviews · 2023Review
- Palliative Care Needs and Clinical Features Related to Short-Term Mortality in Patients Enrolled in a Heart Failure Unit.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Sex Differences in the Risk of First and Recurrent Ventricular Tachyarrhythmias Among Patients Receiving an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator for Primary Prevention.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- A Retrospective Comparative Study of Sex-Based Risk Variations in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF) Versus Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF).Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesCardiovascular disease is one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity in women. Despite this, even in contemporary research, female patients are poorly represented in trials. This study aimed to explore reasons behind the sex disparity in heart failure (HF) trials.
methodsHF trials published in seven high-impact clinical journals (impact factor >20), between 2000 and 2020, were identified. Trials with over 300 participants of both sexes were included. Large HF registries, as well as population statistics, were also identified using the same criteria.
resultsWe identified 146 HF trials, which included 248 620 patients in total. The median proportion of female patients was 25.8%, with the lowest proportions seen in trials enrolling patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy (17.9%), severe systolic dysfunction (left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <35%) (21.4%) and those involving an invasive procedure (21.1%). The highest proportion of women was seen in trials assessing HF with preserved LVEF (51.6%), as well as trials including older participants (40.5%). Significant differences were seen between prevalence of female trial participants and population prevalence in all LVEF categories (25.8% vs 49.0%, p<0.01).
conclusionsA significant sex disparity was identified in HF trials, most visible in trials assessing patients with severely reduced LVEF and ischaemic aetiology. This is likely due to a complex interplay between enrolment bias and biological variation. Furthermore, the degree of both these aspects may vary according to trial type. Going forward, we should encourage all HF trials to appraise their recruitment log and suggest reasons for any reported sex disparity.
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.