Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37814719›Full record

ReviewTranslational pediatrics2023

Gender differences in congenital heart defects: a narrative review.

Flaminia Pugnaloni, Alessandro Felici, Antonio-Francesco Corno, Bruno Marino, Paolo Versacci, Carolina Putotto

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Translational pediatrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Predicting the future for neonates with symptomatic congenital heart disease.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026
    Article
  9. Risk factors of atrial fibrillation progression in patients with congenital heart disease.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026
    Article
  10. [Association between periconception maternal cold and heat exposure and the risk of congenital heart disease in offspring in China].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Spectrum of Congenital Heart Diseases in Iraqi Patients.The Eurasian journal of medicine · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Flaminia PugnaloniDepartment of Maternal Infantile and Urological Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Alessandro FeliciDepartment of Maternal Infantile and Urological Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Antonio-Francesco CornoSchool of Engineering, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Bruno MarinoDepartment of Maternal Infantile and Urological Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Paolo VersacciDepartment of Maternal Infantile and Urological Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Carolina PutottoDepartment of Maternal Infantile and Urological Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Sapienza University of Rome · ITBambino Gesù Children's Hospital · ITUniversity of Leicester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objective: Congenital heart defects (CHD) represent the most frequent human birth defects, occurring in almost 1% of all live newborns. Understanding the effects of gender in the prevalence of CHD has a key role in defining personalized prevention, disease identification, prognosis definition and individualized therapeutic strategies. Recently, the attempt to achieve a holistic approach to patients with CHD cannot be separated from accounting for existing gender differences. The main aim of this narrative review is to provide an overview of gender differences in the epidemiology of CHD. Methods: A standardized research through three electronic databases (PubMed/Scopus/Embase) was performed using a combination of keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms to include congenital heart diseases, gender difference(s), prevalence. Observational, prospective, population based and retrospective studies reporting gender differences in the prevalence of CHD were included. Conference abstracts were excluded as well as studies not written in English language and non-human studies. Further relevant papers were selected by hand-searching of the references list of selected articles. Key Content and Findings: Search results returned 1,904 papers. Screening articles by title and abstracts resulted in 17 articles for full text review. Of these, 10 were included for analysis and additional 11 articles were included after hand searching review of reference lists. A total of 21 articles were included. Conclusions: Our narrative review confirms that there is a significant gender variation in specific CHD subgroups. In particular, we summarized the evidence that there is a significantly greater risk for males to be born with severe CHD and for females with milder CHD subtypes. The etiology of the different distribution of CHD among genders is still under investigation and a deeper understanding of how gender influences the risk for CHD is warranted. In the future, a gender-based management of CHD should become an established medical approach.

Indexed as

Congenital heart defect (CHD)genderprevalence

Identifiers

PMID37814719
PMCPMC10560357
OpenAlexW4386749806

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.