SynthesisScientific reports2025
Meta-analysis on sex differences in mortality and neurodevelopment in congenital heart defects.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Academic Achievements in Adolescents With Congenital Heart Disease: A Total Population-Based Cohort Study.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Article
- Machine learning to infer neurocognitive testing scores among adolescents and young adults with congenital heart disease.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Prevalence of Optimal Neurodevelopmental Outcome at 4.5-Years in Children Previously on Ventricular Assist Device Support.Pediatric transplantation · 2026Article
- Sex-stratified trends in hypoplastic left heart syndrome-related mortality among children and young adults in the United States, 1999-2024: a pre- and post-COVID-19 analysis.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Prognostic value of neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, absolute lymphocyte count, and thrombocyte-lymphocyte ratio in predicting the outcomes of tetralogy of fallot primary repair.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Given the increasing survival rates among congenital heart disease (CHD) patients and the growing emphasis on their quality of life, there is a need to comprehensively assess the impact of surgical interventions on neurodevelopmental outcomes. With increasing awareness in sex-related disparities in CHD, there is a need to explore potential differences in surgical mortality and neurodevelopmental outcomes between male and female patients. In this systematic review, we adhered to PRISMA guidelines and PROSPERO registration (#CRD42021225610). Articles published from 2015 to 2021 were searched using MeSH descriptors in three major databases (MEDLINE Ovid, Elsevier Embase, and Cochrane Library). Study selection criteria focused on pediatric (< 18 years of age) CHD patients undergoing primary cardiac surgery. A total of 163 articles that met inclusion criteria were reviewed. The definition and assessment of neurodevelopmental impairment, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and statistical analysis methods were adhered by blinded reviewers. Previous studies have reported higher rates of early childhood mortality in female patients and higher rates of neurodevelopmental impairment in male patients with CHD requiring surgery. Our meta-analysis suggests that these differences may no longer be valid in contemporary surgical cohorts. However, it is unclear if sex-related risk factors have truly been mitigated with current surgical and medical approaches Our meta-analysis does underscore the need for further research considering sex as a variable and for additional investigative efforts in long term neurodevelopmental outcomes.
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.