Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39279866›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Europe2024

Sex and gender bias in chronic coronary syndromes research: analysis of studies used to inform the 2019 European Society of Cardiology guidelines.

Kathleen Bastian-Pétrel, Jessica L Rohmann, Sabine Oertelt-Prigione, Marco Piccininni, Katja Gayraud, Michelle Kelly-Irving, Nathalie Bajos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet regional health. Europe, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. ​Consideration of sex/gender aspects in cardiovascular clinical trials.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors.

Kathleen Bastian-PétrelCERPOP-UMR1295, Université de Toulouse III, UPS, Inserm, Toulouse, France.
Jessica L RohmannInstitute of Public Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Sabine Oertelt-PrigioneDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Marco PiccininniInstitute of Public Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Katja GayraudDepartment of Aviation and Space Psychology, Institute of Aerospace Medicine, German Aerospace Center (DLR), Hamburg, Germany.
Michelle Kelly-IrvingCERPOP-UMR1295, Université de Toulouse III, UPS, Inserm, Toulouse, France.
Nathalie BajosInstitut de Recherche Interdisciplinaire sur les enjeux Sociaux - Sciences Sociales, Politique, Santé, IRIS (UMR 8156 CNRS - EHESS - U997 INSERM), Aubervilliers, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Sex and gender inequalities in ischemic heart diseases persist. Although ischemic heart disease is less common in women, they experience worse clinical outcomes and are less likely to receive guideline-recommended treatments. The primary scientific literature from which clinical guideline recommendations are derived may not have considered potential sex- and gender biases. This study aims to determine whether the literature cited in recent cardiovascular guidelines' clinical recommendations contain sex and gender biases. Methods: We analysed publications cited in the 2019 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guideline recommendations on chronic coronary syndromes, using a checklist to guide data extraction and evaluate the individual studies for sex- and gender-related aspects, such as inclusion/exclusion criteria, outcome measures, and demographic data reporting. To assess representation over time, the proportion of women participants in each study was computed and analysed using a beta regression model. We also examined the associations between women's representation, journal impact factor and author gender. Findings: Among the 20 ESC recommendations on chronic coronary syndromes, four contained sex-related statements; we did not identify any gender-specific suggestions. The referenced literature upon which these recommendations were based consisted of 108 articles published between 1991 and 2019, encompassing more than 1.6 million study participants (26.8%; 432,284 women). Only three studies incorporated sex-sensitive designs; none were gender-specific. The term "gender" did not occur in 84% (n = 91/108) of the publications; when used, it was exclusively to denote biological sex. The proportion of women (assumed by investigators) among study participants fluctuated over time. Having a woman as first (odds ratio (OR) = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.19-2.39) or last author (OR = 2.28, 95% CI: 1.31-3.97), was significantly associated with having more women participants in the study. Interpretation: The data underlying ESC guideline recommendations largely lack reporting of possible sex- and gender-specific aspects, and women are distinctly underrepresented. To what extent these recommendations apply to members of specific population groups who are not well-represented in the underlying evidence base remains unknown. Funding: This study is part of the Gender and Health Inequalities (GENDHI) project, ERC-2019-SyG. This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC).

Indexed as

Cardiovascular disease in womenCardiovascular guidelinesChronic coronary syndromesClinical practice guidelinesEuropean Society of CardiologyGender biasIHDSex bias

Identifiers

PMID39279866
PMCPMC11402417

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.