ArticleBritish heart journal1995
Women and myocardial infarction: agism rather than sexism?
Article in British heart journal, 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evidence of gender bias when applying the new diagnostic criteria for myocardial infarction.Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2005Article
- The National Service Framework for Older People: England's approach to ending age discrimination in services and therapeutics.Drugs & aging · 2004Review
- Gender differences in the management and outcome of patients with acute coronary artery disease.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2002Article
- Do race and gender influence the use of invasive procedures?Journal of general internal medicine · 2001Article
- Clinical and prognostic characteristics associated with age and gender in acute myocardial infarction: a multihospital perspective in the Murcia region of Spain.European journal of epidemiology · 1999Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine whether women with myocardial infarction are treated differently from men of the same age and to assess the effect of changes in the coronary care unit admission policy.
designClinical audit.
settingThe coronary care unit and general medical wards of a teaching hospital. In 1990 the age limit for admission to coronary care was 65 years. This age limit was removed in 1991. PATIENTS: 539 female and 977 male patients admitted with myocardial infarction between 1990 and 1992. MAIN OUTCOMES: Admission to the coronary care unit, administration of thrombolysis, and in-hospital mortality.
results409 men and 254 women were admitted with myocardial infarction in 1990 and 568 men and 285 women in 1992. Removal of the age limit for admission to the coronary care unit resulted in an increase in the numbers of both sexes admitted with myocardial infarction. In both years, however, proportionately more men with infarction were admitted to coronary care: 226 men (55%) and 96 women (38%) (P < 0.01) (95% CI 7 to 28) in 1990 and 459 men (81%) and 200 women (70%) (P < 0.01) (%CI 2 to 19) in 1992. Some 246 men (60%) and 133 women (52%) with infarction (P < 0.01) received thrombolytic treatment in 1990 compared with 319 men (56%) and 130 women (46%) (P < 0.01) in 1992. The mean age of women sustaining a myocardial infarction was significantly greater in both years studied. In 1992 a total of 78 men (7%) and 34 women (4%) (P < 0.05) admitted with chest pain underwent cardiac catheterisation before discharge from hospital.
conclusionsDifferences in admission rates to the coronary care unit and the rate of thrombolysis between the sexes can be explained by the older age of women sustaining infarction. The application of age limits for admission to coronary care or administration of thrombolysis places elderly patients at a disadvantage. As women sustain myocardial infarctions at an older age they are placed at a greater disadvantage.
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.