ReviewHeart international2025
Eliminating Sex Disparities in Dyslipidaemia Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment.
Review in Heart international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Austrian lipid consensus : Interdisciplinary evidence-based recommendations on prevention and treatment of lipid-associated diseases from 15 medical specialist societies].Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2026Article
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
Despite strides in cardiovascular disease (CVD) management, dyslipidaemia remains a significant yet underdiagnosed and undertreated risk factor, particularly among women. Sex-based disparities persist in screening, diagnosis and treatment, leading to suboptimal management and increased CVD risk in female populations. This article explores the current literature on sex disparities in dyslipidaemia, analysing screening guidelines, diagnosis trends and treatment gaps. It examines factors influencing lipid metabolism across a woman's lifespan, including hormonal fluctuations, pregnancy, menopause and their impact on CVD risk. The article also highlights barriers to effective lipid management in women, including clinician biases, inadequate screening and lower prescription rates of statin and non-statin therapies. Women are less likely to undergo lipid screening despite having significant CVD risk factors. Even when diagnosed, they receive statin therapy at lower rates than men, and treatment intensification is less frequent. Additionally, clinical trials assessing lipid-lowering therapies often underrepresent women, limiting the applicability of evidence-based recommendations. The lack of sex-specific risk assessment tools further contributes to missed opportunities for prevention and treatment. Addressing disparities in dyslipidaemia management is crucial to reducing the burden of CVD in women. Enhancing awareness among clinicians, improving screening strategies, incorporating sex-specific risk factors into predictive models and increasing female representation in clinical trials are essential steps towards equitable cardiovascular care.
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.