ReviewUS cardiology2024
Reporting Sex and Gender Differences in Cardiovascular Research.
Review in US cardiology, 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.
- Sex and gender classification in clinical decision-support tools: a cross-sectional review of tools on MDCalc.Biology of sex differences · 2026Review
- Circulating CD38 shows stronger association with incident heart failure in women despite lower levels: sex differences and kidney-function context.Biology of sex differences · 2026Article
- Prevalence and Trends in Cardiovascular Risk Factors Among Middle-Aged South Asian Adults Compared With Other Racial and Ethnic Groups in the United States: A Longitudinal Analysis of 2 Cohort Studies.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Article
- Cardiovascular disease prevention in sexual minorities, A fellow's voice.American journal of preventive cardiology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Incorporating sexual orientation, gender identity, and expression (SOGIE) data into cardiovascular research design is necessary to reduce cardiovascular healthcare disparities among sexual and gender minority (SGM) people. To achieve this, researchers should not only understand appropriate terminology, but also implement inclusive survey tools that respect privacy and cultural nuances, as the benefit of obtaining SOGIE information is critical to tailoring cardiovascular interventions and ensuring equitable healthcare outcomes. In order to address potential concerns related to disclosing SOGIE information, we must prioritize sensitivity training for healthcare professionals to foster an inclusive environment for data collection, ethical considerations, and confidentiality safeguards. This review aims to develop and inform critical thinking about sex and gender and to identify strategic mechanisms to include SOGIE data in cardiovascular research, thus improving cardiovascular health outcomes for SGM individuals. By embracing a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to data collection, cardiovascular research can contribute significantly to advancing personalized and inclusive healthcare practices and medical education, and ultimately promote better health outcomes for all SGM individuals.
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.