Cited by 75Sex and Gender in HealthcareCardiovascular Health and Risk FactorsMenopause: Health Impacts and Treatments

Improving the Cardiovascular Health of Women in the Nation: Moving Beyond the Bikini Boundaries

Open access
Gulati, Martha·2017·Circulation

Abstract

espite recent declines in cardiovascular mortality in women over the past decade, cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the number 1 killer of women. 1 Deaths attributable to CVD outnumber the deaths attributable to breast, ovarian, uterine, cervical, or vaginal cancers, or childbirth combined, and yet, when the medical community refers to women's health, they continue to focus on the bikini boundaries. SEX DIFFERENCES IN TREATMENT FOR CVDWomen continue to be labeled as a special population in many guidelines relating to CVD, despite being the majority of the population.Nonetheless, when presenting with an acute coronary syndrome, it is women, in particular, younger women, who are less likely to receive guideline-recommended therapies, timeliness of care, or diagnostic and invasive therapies resulting in worse outcomes in comparison with men. 2 Women who experience cardiac arrest are less likely to receive bystander CPR than men, and less likely to receive guideline-recommended therapies.The prevalence of heart failure is greater in women than in men, and, despite the sex differences in the causes and types of heart failure, women with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction are less likely to receive evidence-based therapies, including medications, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, ventricular assist devices, and heart transplant, despite improved survival and quality of life when receiving these therapies.Asymptomatic peripheral artery disease is twice as common in women as in men, and once a diagnosis of peripheral artery disease is made, women have greater functional impairment, lower rates of revascularization, and an increased likelihood of emergent procedures.This persistent pattern of poorer cardiovascular outcomes appears predominantly attributable to suboptimal use of guideline-recommended therapy in women, despite the strong evidence that management of CVD with evidence-based therapies benefits both sexes equally. Improving the Cardiovascular Health of Women in the NationMoving Beyond the Bikini Boundaries

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 · 10.1161/circulationaha.116.025303

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Included studies were population-based retrospective cohort studies (n=2), secondary analysis of the Nurses' Health Study II cohort (n=1), and a single nested case-cohort study that resulted in 2 publications (n=2).

    “Studies included were populationbased retrospective cohort studies (n ¼ 2) (28,34), secondary analysis of the longitudinal Nurses' Health Study II cohort (n ¼ 1) (25), and a single nested casecohort study that resulted in 2 publications (n ¼ 2):”

    From Cardiovascular Risk Following Fertility Therapy (2017) · cites this paper as [34]

  • Repeating the meta-analysis after removing results by Nahuis et al., who reported an OR, as opposed to a HR, yielded a similar pooled estimate (HR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.28; I2=56.6%).

    “We repeated the meta-analysis after removing results by Nahuis et al. (34), who reported an OR, as opposed to a HR, and the pooled estimate was similar (HR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.28; I 2 ¼ 56.6%).”

    From Cardiovascular Risk Following Fertility Therapy (2017) · cites this paper as [34]

  • Some studies were limited to ascertainment of exposure using public health insurance records and potentially missing private treatments.

    “Furthermore, some studies were limited to ascertainment of exposure using public health insurance records and potentially missing private treatments (28,34).”

    From Cardiovascular Risk Following Fertility Therapy (2017) · cites this paper as [34]

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 5 · Cited by 75

Authors
Gulati, M.
Affiliations
University of Arizona (US)
Corresponding author
Gulati, Martha
Venue
Circulation
Published
2017-02-07
Volume
135
Issue
6
Pages
495-498
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2584453234
Cited by
75
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 2
FWCI
7.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Circulation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Sex and Gender in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Menopause: Health Impacts and Treatments
Keywords
cardiovascular disease in women, sex differences in cardiovascular care, guideline-directed therapy, acute coronary syndrome, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, peripheral arterial disease, cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular health disparities, women's health
MeSH terms
Cardiovascular Diseases, Female, Humans, Risk Factors, United States, Women's Health

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