ArticleGlobal heart2025
Sex Differences in Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Scoping Review Across the Care Continuum.
Article in Global heart, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Age- and Sex-Related Patterns in Coronary CT Angiography Referrals and Coronary Atherosclerotic Burden: A Single-Center Real-World Referral-Based Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Sex-specific associations between pregnancy zone protein and acute coronary syndrome: a case-control study.Biology of sex differences · 2026Article
- Sex-specific differences in the prognostic value of ischemic pre-hospital ECGs.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- From midlife emergence to old-age divergence: an empirical study on structural gendered ageism in health service utilization in Tibet.International journal for equity in health · 2025Article
- Heart failure care in low-middle income countries: Time for incorporating gender-specific guidelines?International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2025Article
- Acute Ischemic Stroke Treatment in Germany (2015-2023): Nationwide Trends in Thrombolysis and Thrombectomy by Age and Sex.Brain sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Optimal diagnosis and management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is essential to improve clinical outcomes and prognosis. Sex disparities in ACS care have been reported in the literature, but evidence gaps remain. This review aims to map and to summarize the global evidence on sex differences in the provision of care across the ACS continuum. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in Pubmed, EMBASE, and the World Health Organization Global Index Medicus. The search was restricted to original research articles published between January 1, 2013, and August 30 Results: Of the 15,033 identified articles, 446 articles (median percentage of women per study: 29%), reporting on 1,483 outcomes, were included. Most studies were conducted in high-income regions (65%). Studies reported on pre-hospital care (8%), diagnosis (9%), treatment (45%), discharge (14%) and events (24%). For 45% of outcomes, results favored men, 5% favored women, and 50% showed mixed results or no sex difference. ACS care aspects with the largest sex differences were pre-hospital care (58% of the outcomes favored men vs 7% favored women) and diagnosis (70% favored men vs 2% favored women). Conclusion: Studies on sex differences in ACS mainly come from high-income regions. Sex differences in ACS management are widely reported and mainly unfavorable to women, especially in the early phases of pre-hospital care and diagnosis.
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.