Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 194

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

Referral Patterns for Coronary Artery Disease Treatment: Gender Bias or Good Clinical Judgment?

Bickell, Nina A., Pieper, Karen S., Lee, Kerry L., Mark, Daniel B., Glower, Donald D., Pryor, David B., Califf, Robert M.·1992·Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a gender bias exists in referral for coronary bypass graft surgery among patients with catheterization-documented coronary artery disease. DESIGN: Historical cohort study (1969 to 1984). SETTING: A referral medical center. PATIENTS: A total of 5795 patients with catheterization-documented coronary artery disease. MEASUREMENTS: Surgical referral patterns of men and women grouped by risk for cardiac death and by treatment effectiveness. Time trends were evaluated for three periods: 1969 to 1974, 1975 to 1979, and 1980 to 1984. RESULTS: Overall, when no adjustment was made for baseline risk for cardiac death, no statistical difference was found between men and women regarding referral for surgery (46% compared with 44%, respectively). When an adjustment was made for such risk, the male-to-female odds ratio for surgical referral was 1.28 (95% Cl, 1.05 to 1.58) among patients with a low risk for cardiac death. This effect was most evident in the 1980 to 1984 period (odds ratio, 1.73; Cl, 1.29 to 2.31). In the high-risk group, the odds ratio was 0.84 (Cl, 0.68 to 1.04), with little change occurring during the study. Men were more likely to be referred for surgery when surgery offered the least survival benefit relative to medical therapy (odds ratio, 1.29; Cl, 1.08 to 1.54). This effect was most pronounced in the 1980 to 1984 period (odds ratio, 1.63; Cl, 1.27 to 2.10). CONCLUSIONS: Women are less likely than men to be referred for coronary bypass graft surgery among patients with a low risk for cardiac death, in whom surgery offers little or no survival benefit over medical treatment. Women are at least as likely as men to be referred for bypass surgery among more symptomatic and more severely diseased patients, in whom surgery offers the greatest survival benefits. These trends were most prominent in the recent years of the study. Based on surgical survival benefits, these referral patterns may represent more appropriate treatment referral for women than men.

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 · 10.7326/0003-4819-116-10-791

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

Cited by

See all 194

Metadata

Authors
Bickell, N. A., Pieper, K. S., Lee, K. L., Mark, D. B., Glower, D. D., Pryor, D. B., & Califf, R. M.
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Published
1992-05-15
Volume
116
Issue
10
Pages
791-797
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
OpenAlex
W2037616009
Cited by
194
References
1
FWCI
26.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Referral Patterns for Coronary Artery Disease Treatment: Gender Bias or Good Clinical Judgment? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7326/0003-4819-116-10-791
The paper
Bickell, N. A., Pieper, K. S., Lee, K. L., Mark, D. B., Glower, D. D., Pryor, D. B., & Califf, R. M. (1992). Referral Patterns for Coronary Artery Disease Treatment: Gender Bias or Good Clinical Judgment? Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-116-10-791

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.