ReviewChirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany)2024
[Gender medicine in lung diseases].
Review in Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany), 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.
- Catamenial Pneumothorax as an Underrecognized Manifestation of Thoracic Endometriosis: A 25-Year Single-Center Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Sex differences in surgical treatment of pleural empyema: an exploratory retrospective comparison of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery and thoracotomy.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gender-specific differences in the diagnostics and treatment must be considered for various lung diseases. In the case of pneumothorax, in addition to differences in etiology there are also relevant differences in treatment and recurrence rates between men and women. For example, to achieve low recurrence rates catamenial pneumothorax requires interdisciplinary collaboration with gynecology. The incidence of lung cancer has equalized in recent years and in addition, various gender-specific prognostic factors have become relevant. Several meta-analyses have identified female gender as a positive prognostic factor for lung cancer, in addition to the higher prevalence of various driver mutations in women. In current trials of multimodal treatment for lung cancer, gender differences in tolerability and patient outcome are already apparent. In subgroup analyses better event-free survival was observed in women, although immune-mediated adverse events were more common in women.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39090448What 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.