ReviewCureus2024
Gender Bias in Diagnosis, Prevention, and Treatment of Cardiovascular Diseases: A Systematic Review.
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.
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
43 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Educational strategies for integrating gender perspectives in health professions training: a systematic review to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion.BMC medical education · 2026Pooled it
- Cardiovascular disease risk reduction interventions for indigenous women: an umbrella review.Health promotion international · 2026Pooled it
- Representation of Older Adults and Women in Randomized Trials of Noninvasive Imaging for Chest Pain.Circulation. Cardiovascular imaging · 2025Pooled it
- Medical student perceptions of gender and pain: a systematic review of the literature.BMC medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Time for Change: Strengthening Early Detection and Intervention Strategies to Improve Cardiovascular Health in Canada.CJC open · 2026Review
- GPT-4 improves sex-specificity in cardiovascular patient education but may perpetuate gender biases: A mixed-methods audit.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Transthyretin Amyloid Cardiomyopathy in Women: Epidemiology, Diagnostic Delay, and Clinical Implications.Cardiology and therapy · 2026Review
- Age-Dependent Benefit of ECPR in OHCA: An Interaction Analysis.Chonnam medical journal · 2026Article
- A Review of Sex Differences in Patients with Aortic Stenosis: A Focus on Diagnostic and Treatment Differences, a Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Age- and Sex-Related Patterns in Coronary CT Angiography Referrals and Coronary Atherosclerotic Burden: A Single-Center Real-World Referral-Based Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Coronary Artery Disease in Women: Sex-Specific Pathophysiology, Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Management.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Article
- Loss of chromosome Y in hematopoietic cells: mechanisms and implications for human disease.MedScience · 2026Review
- Evolving mortality trends in hypertension-associated ischemic heart disease among U.S. adults over two decades: a CDC wonder analysis (2000-2023).Journal of human hypertension · 2026Article
- Article
- Sex-Specific Health and Economic Benefits in Older Women at Risk of Atrial Fibrillation: A Proof-of-Concept Evaluation of an AI-Enabled Strategy for Early Thromboembolic Risk Detection.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Equiflow: An open-source software package for evaluating changes in cohort composition.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Increase in Prevalence of Self-Reported High Blood Cholesterol Among Adults, United States, 2019-2023.Preventing chronic disease · 2026Article
- Association between cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome stages and risk of all-cause mortality in U.S. adults: a cross-sectional survey based on NHANES.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.