ReviewFrontiers in public health2026
Sex and gender in depression after percutaneous coronary intervention: clinical patterns, mechanistic hypotheses, and care pathways.
Review in Frontiers in public health, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Depressive symptoms are common after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and are associated with poorer recovery, lower adherence to secondary prevention, reduced participation in cardiac rehabilitation, and a higher risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Evidence also suggests that depression after PCI is not experienced, detected, or managed in the same way across sex and gender groups. Women are more often reported to have higher early symptom scores, greater anxiety comorbidity, more somatic symptom overlap, and lower access to some forms of guideline-based cardiovascular care. Men may be less likely to disclose affective symptoms and may present psychological distress through externalizing behaviors, treatment disengagement, smoking, alcohol use, anger, or delayed help-seeking. These patterns should not be interpreted as fixed male-female traits. Rather, they probably reflect interactions among biological sex-related factors, social gender norms, comorbidity, age, socioeconomic position, and healthcare access. Unlike previous reviews that pool depression across coronary syndromes, this review is organized around patients after PCI, explicitly distinguishes conclusions directly supported by post-PCI data from those extrapolated from broader coronary populations, and identifies the remaining extrapolations as research priorities. This narrative review summarizes clinical patterns of depression after PCI, discusses plausible biological and psychosocial mechanisms, and proposes a sex- and gender-informed care pathway for screening, referral, cardiac rehabilitation, and follow-up. The available literature supports a more cautious and individualized approach than a simple binary model: screening tools should be interpreted alongside clinical interview and behavioral indicators; rehabilitation should address practical barriers, stigma, caregiving burden, and functional goals; and future studies should report sex-disaggregated data while also measuring gender-related exposures.
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.