ArticleJACC. Advances2025
Sex Differences in the Clinical Recognition of Significant Aortic Stenosis.
Article in JACC. Advances, 2025. 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.
- Mitral Regurgitation after TAVR: Sex Differences and Low-Flow Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- A Review of Sex Differences in Patients with Aortic Stenosis: A Focus on Diagnostic and Treatment Differences, a Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Aortic valve stenosis serum IGFBP2 mediates female-specific Evogliptin resistance in valve myofibroblasts.Cell reports · 2026Article
- Exploring Gender Disparities and Advances in Transcatheter Structural Heart Interventions.Interventional cardiology (London, England) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWomen with significant aortic stenosis (AS) are under-represented among patients undergoing aortic valve replacement in the United States as compared with men despite similar disease prevalence.
objectivesThis study evaluated the impact of sex on the clinical recognition of significant AS following diagnostic transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE).
methodsUsing data from a large administrative multicenter database, we assessed rates of clinical diagnosis of AS defined by assignment of an Internal Classification Diagnosis (ICD) code for AS following a diagnostic TTE. Fine-Gray models were used to evaluate the 1-year cumulative rate of AS diagnosis by sex, AS severity, and AS phenotype accounting for competing risk of death.
resultsAmong 2,036 included patients (48.9% female, 51.1% male), the 1-year rate of clinical recognition following a diagnostic TTE with at least moderate AS was low (52.4%), and women were less likely as compared with men to receive a clinical diagnosis of AS (55.7% male vs 48.9% female; P = 0.003). Specifically, among patients with severe AS, women were less likely to receive an ICD diagnosis as compared with males (64.1% vs 74.3%), driven primarily by lower rates of clinical recognition of severe low gradient AS (66.9% male vs 54.3% female; P = 0.004).
conclusionsRates of clinical recognition of AS following a diagnostic TTE are low, and vary significantly by sex, AS disease severity, and severe AS phenotype. Further studies are needed to maximize the clinical recognition of TTE-confirmed AS and to mitigate sex disparities in diagnosis and treatment.
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.