Background: A substantial part of literature has been centered on sex differences in the clinical aspects of ischemic heart disease (IHD). Many reports have documented differences in the presentation and risk profile between women and men. Such differences drive sex-related inequalities in the referral and treatment of IHD. Yet data are insufficient to clarify the reasons for such disparities. The objective of this review is to analyze the main gender differences regarding symptoms, diagnosis, and risk stratification of coronary heart disease in order to identify “gaps” in existing literature that need to be addressed in future research efforts. Methods: We searched English-language studies on MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from the database start dates to January 2016. Evidence synthesis was based on cohort studies, registry data, and clinical trial data. Results: Women do not often participate in clinical studies. In a number of articles, authors have questioned how the "white male” came to be the prototype of the human research subject. Consequently although many reports continue to describe differential treatment based on patients’ sex, the extent to which such inequalities are due to true sex differences in pathophysiology or whether they reflects inaccuracy in risk stratification is unclear. Conclusion: Today, even the best database is incapable in and of itself of supplying answers to the question of whether women are being treated less compared with men by the medical community.

Barriers to risk stratification accuracy in ischemic heart disease in women: the role of non-obstructive coronary artery disease

CENKO, EDINA;BUGIARDINI, RAFFAELE
2016

Abstract

Background: A substantial part of literature has been centered on sex differences in the clinical aspects of ischemic heart disease (IHD). Many reports have documented differences in the presentation and risk profile between women and men. Such differences drive sex-related inequalities in the referral and treatment of IHD. Yet data are insufficient to clarify the reasons for such disparities. The objective of this review is to analyze the main gender differences regarding symptoms, diagnosis, and risk stratification of coronary heart disease in order to identify “gaps” in existing literature that need to be addressed in future research efforts. Methods: We searched English-language studies on MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from the database start dates to January 2016. Evidence synthesis was based on cohort studies, registry data, and clinical trial data. Results: Women do not often participate in clinical studies. In a number of articles, authors have questioned how the "white male” came to be the prototype of the human research subject. Consequently although many reports continue to describe differential treatment based on patients’ sex, the extent to which such inequalities are due to true sex differences in pathophysiology or whether they reflects inaccuracy in risk stratification is unclear. Conclusion: Today, even the best database is incapable in and of itself of supplying answers to the question of whether women are being treated less compared with men by the medical community.
Cenko, Edina; Bugiardini, Raffaele
File in questo prodotto:
Eventuali allegati, non sono esposti

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/561949
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 6
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 4
social impact