ArticleScientific reports2026
Impact of sex differences on revascularization and long-term clinical outcomes in patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a multicentre study from China.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The influence of sex differences on the clinical prognosis of patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) remains controversial. This multicenter, retrospective study analyzed NSTEMI patients from five institutions. The primary endpoints were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess sex differences in revascularization. Multivariate Cox regression with stepwise selection identified independent prognostic predictors. Stratified analyses were performed by revascularization status. To strengthen the analytical robustness, propensity score matching (PSM) was employed as a sensitivity analysis, balancing age, comorbidities, and key treatment factors. A total of 4,911 NSTEMI patients (3,506 men; 1,405 women) completed follow-up. Women were less likely to undergo revascularization (adjusted odds ratio 0.68, 95%CI 0.58–0.79). Over a median follow-up of 527 days, women had significantly lower cumulative survival free from MACCE and MACE (both P < 0.001). After multivariate adjustment, women remained to have an increased risk of MACCE (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.03–1.40) and MACE (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.09–1.55) in the overall cohort, particularly among those not undergoing revascularization (MACCE: HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.05–1.60; MACE: HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.27–2.10). However, no significant sex-based differences were observed in the revascularized subgroup (P > 0.05). These findings were consistent in the PSM-based sensitivity analysis. The sex-based prognosis difference in NSTEMI is linked to underutilization of revascularization in women. Ensuring equitable guideline-directed revascularization may eliminate this disparity.
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.