ReviewReviews in cardiovascular medicine2023
Reappraising Ischemic Heart Disease in Women.
Review in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cardiovascular risk prediction in women: rethinking traditional approaches through precision medicine.Frontiers in global women's health · 2026Review
- Gender disparities in delayed angina diagnosis: insights from 2001-2020 NHANES data.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Burden, risk factors, and projections of ischemic heart disease in China (1990-2021): findings from the 2021 GBD study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluating Ischemic Heart Disease in Women: Focus on Angina With Nonobstructive Coronary Arteries (ANOCA).Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2024Review
- Psychological Health and Ischemic Heart Disease in Women: A Review of Current Evidence and Clinical Considerations across the Healthspan.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite advances in the management of ischemic heart disease worldwide, mortality in women remains disproportionally high in comparison to men, particularly in women under the age of 55. The greater prevalence of ischemia with non-obstructive coronary arteries (INOCA) in women has been highlighted as a potential cause of this disparity. Moreover, current guideline recommendations for computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) as the first line of investigation for stable chest pain may further amplify this inequality. Traditional cardiovascular risk factors carry greater influence in women than men in the development of ischemic heart disease. Despite this, women have been consistently under-represented in large-scale clinical trials. Chest pain in women is more likely to be overlooked due to the higher likelihood of atypical presentation and normal anatomical imaging, despite persistent symptoms and decreased quality of life indicators. Accordingly, we call into question a CTCA-first approach in clinical guidelines; instead, we favor a personalized, patient first approach. Due to the misdiagnosis of ischemic heart disease in women, a large proportion are denied access to preventative therapy. This is especially true of women with INOCA, for which there is a critical lack of specific guidelines and rigorous evidence-based therapies. Ongoing clinical trials aim to identify potential management options that may benefit those with INOCA, bringing the field closer to eliminating sex-related disparities in the diagnosis, management and prognosis of ischemic heart disease.
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.