Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38450371›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2024

Multidisciplinary management of cardiovascular disease in women: Delphi consensus.

José M Gámez, Milagros Pedreira Pérez, María Rosa Fernández Olmo, María Fasero Laiz, Verónica Inaraja, Vicente Pallarés Carratalá

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 · 2026
    Article
  2. 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 5 institutions in 1 country.

José M GámezServicio de Cardiología, Hospital Universitario Son Llatzer, Departamento de Medicina, Universidad de las Islas Baleares, Palma de Mallorca, Spain.
Milagros Pedreira PérezCoordinadora de la Unidad de Cardio-Oncología y de la Unidad de Enfermedad Cardiovascular en la Mujer, Hospital Clínico Universitario Santiago de Compostela, A Coruña, Spain.
María Rosa Fernández OlmoEspecialista en Cardiología en la Unidad de Rehabilitación Cardiaca, Hospital Universitario de Jaén, Jaén, Spain.
María Fasero LaizCoordinadora de la Unidad de Menopausia Saludable, Hospital Universitario La Zarzuela, Madrid, Spain.
Verónica InarajaDepartamento Médico, Organon Salud España, Madrid, Spain.
Vicente Pallarés CarrataláUnidad de Vigilancia de la Salud, Unión de Mutuas de Castellón, Castellón, Spain.
Complejo Hospitalario de Jaén · ESComplejo Hospitalario Universitario de Santiago · ESHospital La Luz · ESHospital Son Llatzer · ESUniversitat Jaume I · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

cardiovascular diseaseDelphidiagnosismultidisciplinarystatinswomen

Identifiers

PMID38450371
PMCPMC10914989
OpenAlexW4392002570

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.