ReviewEClinicalMedicine2026
Resynchronising care: addressing sex differences in cardiac resynchronisation therapy.
Review in EClinicalMedicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Redesigning cardiovascular medicine around sex differences.Nature medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite compelling evidence for sex-based differences in cardiovascular disease, current guidelines for cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) remain predominantly informed by male-centric data. Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is less prevalent in female individuals. As a result, female patients were less frequently enrolled in early landmark CRT trials (comprising only ∼20% of participants), thus limiting the statistical power needed to detect meaningful female-specific outcomes. Emerging evidence suggests that female patients derive greater benefit from CRT at shorter QRS durations (130-149 ms) compared to male patients (≥150 ms), particularly those with left bundle branch block and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy. Structural, electrical, and device programming differences may contribute to enhanced reverse remodelling and better clinical outcomes in females. However, these findings are seldomly reflected in guideline recommendations and rarely impact clinical decision-making, leading to underuse of CRT in eligible female patients. This Viewpoint calls for the integration of sex-specific analyses in CRT research, sex-specific recommendations in guidelines, and enhanced clinician awareness of sex-based differences.
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.