ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
Gender dimension in cardio-pulmonary continuum.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrating gender analysis into research: reflections from the Gender-Net Plus workshop.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Review
- Chinese expert consensus on the diagnosis, treatment, and management of asthma in women across life.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Cardio-pulmonary diseases, which were once regarded as a man's illness, have been one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality for both men and women in many countries in recent years. Both gender and sex influence the functional and structural changes in the human body and therefore play an important role in disease clinical manifestation, treatment choice, and/or response to treatment and prognosis of health outcomes. The gender dimension integrates sex and gender analysis in health sciences and medical research, however, it is still relatively overlooked suggesting the need for empowerment in the medical research community. Latest advances in the field of cardiovascular research have provided supportive evidence that the application of biological variables of sex has led to the understanding that heart disease in females may have different pathophysiology compared to males, particularly in younger adults. It has also resulted in new diagnostic techniques and a better understanding of symptomatology, while gender analysis has informed more appropriate risk stratification and prevention strategies. The existing knowledge in the pulmonary field shows the higher prevalence of pulmonary disorders among females, however, the role of gender as a socio-cultural construct has yet to be explored for the implementation of targeted interventions. The purpose of this review is to introduce the concept of gender dimension and its importance for the cardiopulmonary continuum with a focus on shared pathophysiology and disease presentation in addition to interrelation with chronic kidney disease. The review presents basic knowledge of what gender dimension means, and the application of sex and gender aspects in cardiovascular medicine with a specific focus on early pulmonary development, pulmonary hypertension, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Early vascular aging and inflammation have been presented as a potential pathophysiological link, with further interactions between the cardiopulmonary continuum and chronic kidney disease. Finally, implications for potential future research have been provided to increase the impact of gender dimension on research excellence that would add value to everybody, foster toward precision medicine and ultimately improve human health.
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.