ReviewHerz2025
[Sex-specific diagnostics and treatment of cardiovascular diseases].
Review in Herz, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are relevant sex-specific differences for coronary heart disease, heart failure, takotsubo syndrome and atrial fibrillation. The underrepresentation of women in clinical studies and the fact that sex-specific aspects and analyses are still insufficiently taken into consideration in preclinical and clinical research raises questions on the transferability of research results to women and strongly contrasts with the generally agreed requirements of evidence-based medicine. Sex-specific aspects are not always adequately addressed even in guidelines. Less than half of 24 ESC guidelines from 2018-2023 contain a corresponding section. In more recent recommendations, such as the guidelines on hypertension from 2024, sex-specific considerations are discussed, also with regards to the "gaps of evidence". In this context, in addition to the demands for more prospective sex-specific studies and data on epidemiology, risk factors, pathophysiology and outcomes, the importance of providing evidence with respect to sex-specific optimal dosages, effects and undesired side effects of drugs are also the subjects of discussion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40116939What 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.