ReviewEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2022
Imaging of heart disease in women: review and case presentation.
Review in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Redesigning cardiovascular medicine around sex differences.Nature medicine · 2026Review
- Review
- AI-driven radiomics in vascular disease: a narrative review of image analysis and clinical translation.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2026Review
- Age- and sex-specific differences in myocardial sympathetic tone and left ventricular remodeling following myocardial injury.Biology of sex differences · 2025Article
- Machine Learning and Bias in Medical Imaging: Opportunities and Challenges.Circulation. Cardiovascular imaging · 2024Review
- The essential role of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in the prediction of subclinical cardiovascular disease.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- Tales from the future-nuclear cardio-oncology, from prediction to diagnosis and monitoring.European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2023Review
- Sex-Related Differences in Heart Failure Diagnosis.Current heart failure reports · 2023Review
- [Gender-specific differences in cardiology].Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Review
- Cardiac Imaging in Women with Ischemic Heart Disease.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Sex-based differences in nuclear medicine imaging and therapy.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
15 authors at 4 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) remain the leading cause of mortality worldwide. Although major diagnostic and therapeutic advances have significantly improved the prognosis of patients with CVD in the past decades, these advances have less benefited women than age-matched men. Noninvasive cardiac imaging plays a key role in the diagnosis of CVD. Despite shared imaging features and strategies between both sexes, there are critical sex disparities that warrant careful consideration, related to the selection of the most suited imaging techniques, to technical limitations, and to specific diseases that are overrepresented in the female population. Taking these sex disparities into consideration holds promise to improve management and alleviate the burden of CVD in women. In this review, we summarize the specific features of cardiac imaging in four of the most common presentations of CVD in the female population including coronary artery disease, heart failure, pregnancy complications, and heart disease in oncology, thereby highlighting contemporary strengths and limitations. We further propose diagnostic algorithms tailored to women that might help in selecting the most appropriate imaging modality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.