ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Sex Differences in Cardiovascular Prevention in Type 2: Diabetes in a Real-World Practice Database.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Review
- Oxidative Stress and Cardiovascular Complications in Type 2 Diabetes: From Pathophysiology to Lifestyle Modifications.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Article
- Clinical characteristics and degree of cardiovascular risk factor control in patients with newly-diagnosed type 2 diabetes in Catalonia.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Article
- Impact of Gender on Patient Experiences of Self-Management in Type 2 Diabetes: A Qualitative Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
- Defining preventive cardiology: A clinical practice statement from the American Society for Preventive Cardiology.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2022Review
- Clinical Research on Type 2 Diabetes: A Promising and Multifaceted Landscape.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Correction: Ramírez-Morros et al. Sex Differences in Cardiovascular Prevention in Type 2: Diabetes in a Real-World Practice Database.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Women with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have a 40% excess risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) compared to men due to the interaction between sex and gender factors in the development, risk, and outcomes of the disease. Our aim was to assess differences between women and men with T2DM in the management and degree of control of cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF). This was a matched cross-sectional study including 140,906 T2DM subjects without previous CVD and 39,186 T2DM subjects with prior CVD obtained from the System for the Development of Research in Primary Care (SIDIAP) database. The absolute and relative differences between means or proportions were calculated to assess sex differences. T2DM women without previous CVD showed higher levels of total cholesterol (12.13 mg/dL (0.31 mmol/L); 95% CI = 11.9−12.4) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c; 5.50 mg/dL (0.14 mmol/L); 95% CI = 5.3−5.7) than men. The recommended LDL-c target was less frequently achieved by women as it was the simultaneous control of different CVRF. In secondary prevention, women showed higher levels of total cholesterol (16.89 mg/dL (0.44 mmol/L); 95% CI = 16.5−17.3), higher levels of LDL-c (8.42 mg/dL (0.22 mmol/L); 95% CI = 8.1−8.8), and higher levels of triglycerides (11.34 mg/dL (0.13 mmol/L); 95% CI = 10.3−12.4) despite similar rates of statin prescription. Recommended targets were less often achieved by women, especially LDL-c < 100 mg/dL (2.59 mmol/L). The composite control was 22% less frequent in women than men. In conclusion, there were substantial sex differences in CVRF management of people with diabetes, with women less likely than men to be on LDL-c target, mainly those in secondary prevention. This could be related to the treatment gap between genders.
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.