Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 207

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Gender and Survival in Patients with Heart Failure: Interactions with Diabetes and Aetiology. Results from the MAGGIC Individual Patient Meta-Analysis

Open access
Martínez-Sellés, Manuel, Doughty, Robert N., Poppe, Katrina, Whalley, Gillian A., Earle, Nikki, Tribouilloy, Christophe, McMurray, John J.V., Swedberg, Karl, Køber, Lars, Berry, Colin, Squire, Iain·2012·European Journal of Heart Failure

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between gender and survival of patients with heart failure, using data from both randomized trials and observational studies, and the relative contribution of age, left ventricular systolic function, aetiology, and diabetes to differences in prognosis between men and women. Methods and results: Data from 31 studies (41 949 patients; 28 052 men, 13 897 women) from the Meta-Analysis Global Group In Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC) individual patient meta-analysis were used. We performed survival analysis to assess the association of gender with mortality, adjusting for predictors of mortality, including age, reduced or preserved ejection fraction (EF), and ischaemic or non-ischaemic aetiology. Women were older [70.5 (standard deviation 12.1) vs. 65.6 (standard deviation 11.6) years], more likely to have a history of hypertension (49.9% vs. 40.0%), and less likely to have a history of ischaemic heart disease (46.3% vs. 58.7%) and reduced EF (62.6% vs. 81.6%) compared with men. During 3 years follow-up, 3521 (25%) women and 7232 (26%) men died. After adjustment, male gender was an independent predictor of mortality, and the better prognosis associated with female gender was more marked in patients with heart failure of non-ischaemic, compared with ischaemic, aetiology (P-value for interaction = 0.03) and in patients without, compared with those with, diabetes (P-value for interaction <0.0001). Conclusion: This large, individual patient data meta-analysis has demonstrated that survival is better for women with heart failure compared with men, irrespective of EF. This survival benefit is slightly more marked in non-ischaemic heart failure but is attenuated by concomitant diabetes.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/eurjhf/hfs026

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 207

Metadata

Authors
Martínez-Sellés, M., Doughty, R. N., Poppe, K., Whalley, G. A., Earle, N., Tribouilloy, C., McMurray, J. J. V., Swedberg, K., Køber, L., Berry, C., & Squire, I.
Venue
European Journal of Heart Failure
Published
2012-05-01
Volume
14
Issue
5
Pages
473-479
ISSN
  • 1388-9842 (ISSN-L)
  • 1879-0844
OpenAlex
W1999145399
Cited by
207
References
1
FWCI
8.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Gender and Survival in Patients with Heart Failure: Interactions with Diabetes and Aetiology. Results from the MAGGIC Individual Patient Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/eurjhf/hfs026
The paper
Martínez-Sellés, M., Doughty, R. N., Poppe, K., Whalley, G. A., Earle, N., Tribouilloy, C., McMurray, J. J. V., Swedberg, K., Køber, L., Berry, C., & Squire, I. (2012). Gender and Survival in Patients with Heart Failure: Interactions with Diabetes and Aetiology. Results from the MAGGIC Individual Patient Meta-Analysis. European Journal of Heart Failure. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjhf/hfs026

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.