Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38500942›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

Gender Bias in Diagnosis, Prevention, and Treatment of Cardiovascular Diseases: A Systematic Review.

Abdullah Al Hamid, Rachel Beckett, Megan Wilson, Zahra Jalal, Ejaz Cheema, Dhiya Al-Jumeily Obe, Thomas Coombs, Komang Ralebitso-Senior, Sulaf Assi

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
23.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Abdullah Al HamidPharmacy Practice, King Faisal University, Al Ahsa, SAU.
Rachel BeckettForensic Science, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, GBR.
Megan WilsonForensic Science, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, GBR.
Zahra JalalPharmacology and Therapeutics, Birmingham University, Birmingham, GBR.
Ejaz CheemaPharmacy, University of Management and Technology, Lahore, PAK.
Dhiya Al-Jumeily ObeComputer Science and Mathematics, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, GBR.
Thomas CoombsToxicology, British American Tobacco, Southampton, GBR.
Komang Ralebitso-SeniorForensic Science, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, GBR.
Sulaf AssiPharmacy, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, GBR.
British American Tobacco (United Kingdom) · GBKing Faisal University · SAUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cardiovascular disease (CVDs) has been perceived as a 'man's disease', and this impacted women's referral to CVD diagnosis and treatment. This study systematically reviewed the evidence regarding gender bias in the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of CVDs. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. We searched CINAHL, PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, British Nursing Index, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The included studies were assessed for quality using risk bias tools. Data extracted from the included studies were exported into Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS, v26; IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Armonk, NY), where descriptive statistics were applied. A total of 19 studies were analysed. CVDs were less reported among women who either showed milder symptoms than men or had their symptoms misdiagnosed as gastrointestinal or anxiety-related symptoms. Hence, women had their risk factors under-considered by physicians (especially by male physicians). Subsequently, women were offered fewer diagnostic tests, such as coronary angiography, ergometry, electrocardiogram (ECG), and cardiac enzymes, and were referred to less to cardiologists and/or hospitalisation. Furthermore, if hospitalised, women were less likely to receive a coronary intervention. Similarly, women were prescribed cardiovascular medicines than men, with the exception of antihypertensive and anti-anginal medicines. When it comes to the perception of CVD, women considered themselves at lower risk of CVDs than men. This systematic review showed that women were offered fewer diagnostic tests for CVDs and medicines than men and that in turn influenced their disease outcomes. This could be attributed to the inadequate knowledge regarding the differences in manifestations among both genders.

Indexed as

cardiovascular disease preventioncardiovascular diseases (cvd)diagnosis and treatmentgender biaswomen’s health

Identifiers

PMID38500942
PMCPMC10945154
OpenAlexW4392783768

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.