ArticleClinical cardiology2025
Evaluation of Sex-Based Differences in the Prescription of the Combination of Evidence-Based Medicine After the Occurrence of an Acute ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2025. 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.
- Evaluating Sex-Based Disparities in STEMI Care: A Call for Methodological Rigor.Clinical cardiology · 2026Article
- Critique on "Evaluation of Sex-Based Differences in the Prescription of the Combination of Evidence-Based Medicine After the Occurrence of an Acute ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction".Clinical cardiology · 2026Article
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
Abstract
aimTo evaluate sex-based differences in the prescription of the combination of evidence-based medicine (cEBM) at discharge after an acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Secondly, we analysed risk factors for the absence of cEBM after discharge, and examined sex differences in adverse events.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study compared women to men who were admitted with an acute STEMI at Haga Teaching Hospital between January 2017 and June 2023. The primary outcome was cEBM, defined as an active prescription of the combination of acetylsalicylic acid, P2Y
resultsAmong 1467 patients (27% women), women were older than men (74 years vs. 65 years, p < 0.001). cEBM was less often prescribed to women than men (66.0% vs. 72.8%, p = 0.013), primarily due to ACEi/ARB (82.1% vs. 87.7%, p = 0.007) and statins (90.2% vs. 95.2%, p = 0.001). In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, female sex was not associated with the absence of cEBM (Odds Ratio (OR) = 1.01, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.73-1.39). Other confounders such as increasing age, decreasing haemoglobin, and oral anticoagulants were correlated with the absence of cEBM.
conclusionsA smaller proportion of women were prescribed cEBM post-STEMI compared to men. However, this difference disappeared when controlled for other confounders. Also, women remained to have a higher chance for a stroke or death at 6 months post-discharge. These findings highlight the need for further research into sex disparities and their underlying confounders in the field of evidence-based medicine after an acute STEMI.
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.