ReviewEuropean heart journal open2024
Sex and gender specific pitfalls and challenges in cardiac rehabilitation: a working hypothesis towards better inclusivity in cardiac rehabilitation programmes.
Review in European heart journal open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors Associated with Adherence to Cardiac Rehabilitation: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Adherence to Exercise and Functional Rehabilitation Programs in Patients with Cardiovascular Diseases: Barriers and Strategies.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Cardiac Rehabilitation in the Era of CRT and ARNI: A Missing Link in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction Care.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Notwithstanding its acknowledged pivotal role for cardiovascular prevention, cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is still largely under prescribed, in almost 25% of patients owing an indication for. In addition, when considering differences concerning the two sexes, female individuals are underrepresented in CR programmes with lower referral rates, participation, and completion as compared to male counterpart. This picture becomes even more tangled with reference to gender, a complex socio-cultural construct characterized by four domains (gender identity, relation, role, and institutionalized gender). Indeed, each of them reveals several obstacles that considerably penalize CR adherence for different categories of people, especially those who are not identifiable with a non-binary gender. Aim of the present review is to identify the sex- (i.e. biological) and gender- (i.e. socio-cultural) specific obstacles to CR related to biological sex and sociocultural gender and then envision a likely viable solution through tailored treatments towards patients' well-being.
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.