ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023
Between-Sex Differences in Risk Factors for Cardiovascular Disease among Patients with Myocardial Infarction-A Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sex-specific angiographic findings and clinical features in patients with myocardial infarction.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Cardiac intermediary metabolism in heart failure: substrate use, signalling roles and therapeutic targets.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2025Review
- Deep learning models for predicting heart disease risk using the UCI database: methods, performance, and clinical context.American journal of cardiovascular disease · 2025Article
- Myocardial Infarction and Traditional Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Older Patients in Primary Care.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2025Article
- Macrophage polarization in acute myocardial infarction: multidimensional regulation and emerging therapeutic opportunities.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Linking Myocardial Infarction and Frailty Status at Old Age in Europe: Moderation Effects of Country and Gender.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Between-sex differences in the presentation, risk factors, management, and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction (MI) are well documented. However, as such differences are highly sensitive to cultural and social changes, there is a need to continuously re-evaluate the evidence. The present contemporary systematic review assesses the baseline characteristics of men and women presenting to secondary, tertiary, and quaternary centres with acute myocardial infarction (MI). Over 1.4 million participants from 18 studies, including primary prospective, cross sectional and retrospective observational studies, as well as secondary analysis of registry data are included in the study. The study showed that women were more likely than men to have a previous diagnosis of diabetes, hypertension, cerebrovascular disease, and heart failure. They also had lower odds of presenting with previous ischaemic heart disease and angina, dyslipidaemia, or a smoking history. Further work is necessary to understand the reasons for these differences, and the role that gender-specific risk factors may have in this context. Moreover, how these between-gender differences are implicated in management and outcomes also requires further work.
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.