ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2024
Multidisciplinary management of cardiovascular disease in women: Delphi consensus.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- From the Oracle of Delphi to Intensive Care Unit Guidelines: Consensus Building Using the Delphi Method.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2026Article
- Lipoprotein(a) and Women's Cardiovascular Health: A Review.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Current clinical guidelines on cardiovascular disease (CVD) do not specifically address the female population. The aim of this consensus is to know the opinion of a group of experts on the management of CVD in women. Methods: Through a Delphi consensus, 31 experts in cardiology, 9 in gynecology and obstetrics, and 14 primary care physicians, showed their degree of agreement on 44 items on CVD in women divided into the following groups: (1) risk factors and prevention strategies; (2) diagnosis and clinical manifestations; and (3) treatment and follow-up. Results: After two rounds, consensus in agreement was reached on 27 items (61.4%). Most of the non-consensus items (31.8%) belonged to group 3. The lack of consensus in this group was mainly among gynecologists and primary care physicians. The panelists agreed on periodic blood pressure control during pregnancy and delivery to detect hypertensive disorders, especially in women with a history of preeclampsia and/or gestational hypertension, and diabetes mellitus control in those with gestational diabetes. Also, the panelists agreed that women receive statins at a lower intensity than men, although there was no consensus as to whether the efficacy of drug treatments differs between women and men. Conclusions: The high degree of consensus shows that the panelists are aware of the differences that exist between men and women in the management of CVD and the need to propose interventions to reduce this inequality. The low level of consensus reveals the lack of knowledge, and the need for information and training on this topic.
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.