ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1998
Sex differences in selection of pacemakers: retrospective observational study.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Is there an effect of gender on phenotypical expression of genetically mediated sinus node dysfunction?Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Article
- Review
- Permanent pacemaker implantation and its predictors in patients admitted for complete atrioventricular block: a report from the Tokyo Cardiovascular Care Unit Network multi-center registry.Heart and vessels · 2020Observational
- Sex Differences and Long-Term Outcome in Patients With Pacemakers.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2020Article
- Cardiac implantable electrical devices in women.Clinical cardiology · 2018Review
- Gender Disparities Across the Spectrum of Advanced Cardiac Therapies: Real or Imagined?Current cardiology reports · 2016Review
- Outcomes in Women Undergoing Electrophysiological Procedures.Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the effect of patients' sex on selection of pacemakers.
designRetrospective univariate and multivariate analysis of a large database.
settingGerman central pacemaker register. SUBJECTS: Records collected at the register for 1992 and 1993 (n=31 913), covering 64% of all implantations in Germany.
main outcome measureProbability of receiving a single chamber, dual chamber, or rate responsive pacemaker in relation to sex.
resultsUnivariate analysis showed that women were more likely to receive single chamber pacemakers and less likely to receive dual chamber or rate responsive systems than men. After demographic and clinical variables were controlled for, women were still more likely to receive a single chamber system (atrial pacing: odds ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 1.07; ventricular pacing: 0.85, 0.80 to 0.92) and less likely to receive a dual chamber (1.20, 1.12 to 1.30) or a rate responsive system (1.26, 1.17 to 1.37) than men.
conclusionsThe data suggest sex differences in the selection of a pacemaker system which cannot be explained by the underlying cardiac disorder. Further research is needed to evaluate why guidelines for implanting pacemakers are not better adhered to.
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.