ReviewCureus2025
Gender Disparities in Ischemic Heart Disease Management: Underdiagnosis in Women and Differences in Treatment.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 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
- Predictors of Adverse Outcomes During 30-Day Follow-Up in Patients Aged 75 Years and Older with Acute Coronary Syndrome.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Racial and sex differences in acute pericarditis among emergency department chest pain patients: a retrospective cohort study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- The Irreversible March of Time: Ischemic Delay and Impact on Outcomes in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ischemic heart disease (IHD) remains the leading cause of death globally, with mounting evidence of gender disparities in its diagnosis, management, and outcomes. Women are frequently underdiagnosed and undertreated despite having similar or greater cardiovascular risk compared to men. These disparities contribute to delayed care, suboptimal treatment, and poorer short- and long-term outcomes in women. A narrative review was conducted using peer-reviewed literature published between 2015 and 2025. The search focused on gender differences in IHD presentation, diagnosis, pharmacologic and interventional treatment, and specific conditions such as myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) and spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD). Articles providing quantitative data, clinical observations, or expert consensus on gender disparities in IHD were prioritized. Our results indicate that women are less likely to receive diagnostic imaging, percutaneous coronary intervention, and statin therapy, even when presenting with comparable clinical indicators. Atypical symptom presentations and a higher prevalence of non-obstructive disease, including MINOCA and SCAD, contribute to underdiagnosis. Women with ST-elevation myocardial infarction also have higher rates of bleeding complications and 30-day mortality, emphasizing the need for tailored therapeutic protocols. Cardiac rehabilitation participation is significantly lower among women due to systemic barriers such as referral bias, socioeconomic factors, and program design not tailored to women's needs. Clinical trials continue to underrepresent women, limiting sex-specific evidence to guide care. Persistent gender disparities in IHD highlight the urgent need for sex-specific diagnostic pathways, treatment protocols, and greater representation of women in cardiovascular research. Enhancing clinician awareness, modifying existing guidelines, and restructuring clinical trials to include sex-disaggregated analysis are essential. These efforts are critical to improving cardiovascular outcomes and achieving equity in IHD care for women.
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.