Literature DB >> 35333178

Authors' Reply to: Using Caution When Interpreting Gender-Based Relative Risk. Comment on "The Effect of Cardiovascular Comorbidities on Women Compared to Men: Longitudinal Retrospective Analysis".

Elma Dervic1,2, Carola Deischinger3, Nina Haug1,2, Michael Leutner3, Alexandra Kautzky-Willer3,4, Peter Klimek1,2.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Keywords:  acute myocardial infarction; cardiovascular diseases; chronic ischemic heart disease; comorbidities; diabetes; gender; gender gap; interaction; relative risk; risk factors; sex differences; smoking

Year:  2022        PMID: 35333178      PMCID: PMC8994150          DOI: 10.2196/36801

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JMIR Cardio        ISSN: 2561-1011


× No keyword cloud information.
We thank Janszky [1] for their time and observations on our paper [2]. We appreciate the comments. Our analysis was done on a large data set of hospital diagnoses from 1997 to 2014. We developed a systematic approach to detect all significant gender differences across all comorbidities associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD). In our paper [2], we reported all risk factors and calculated sex differences as a measure of differences using logarithmic odds ratios between male and female patients in units of pooled standard errors. As a limitation, we pointed out that we cannot rule out specific unobserved confounders as well as the limitations of our in-hospital data set. We thank Janszky [1] for providing an illustrative example of how such a confounding influence could work. It is clear that correlation is not causation, and we did not make any statement on causality. We analyzed the order of diagnoses by conducting a “time directionality analysis,” and our results showed us which diagnoses were “typically diagnosed before.” In the Limitations section, we emphasized this as well: “Given the purely observational nature of our dataset, no statements on causality can be made based on this analysis.” Janszky’s [1] comment clearly shows why it is important to repeatedly stress such limitations. The motivation behind our work is to increase awareness of the need for gender-specific medicine. It has been well described that the female sex overall is protective in the development of CVD due to biological and psychosocial factors but that metabolic diseases like diabetes attenuate this protective effect [3]. Yet, our knowledge on potential sex-dimorphic pathophysiological mechanisms remains limited, in particular in relation to CVD. With our work, we aim to show how observational data can be used to rapidly generate hypotheses regarding sex differences in disease risk at scale and thereby initiate further research that aims to clarify their potential causal mechanisms.
  3 in total

Review 1.  Sex and Gender Differences in Risk, Pathophysiology and Complications of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

Authors:  Alexandra Kautzky-Willer; Jürgen Harreiter; Giovanni Pacini
Journal:  Endocr Rev       Date:  2016-05-09       Impact factor: 19.871

2.  The Effect of Cardiovascular Comorbidities on Women Compared to Men: Longitudinal Retrospective Analysis.

Authors:  Elma Dervic; Carola Deischinger; Nils Haug; Michael Leutner; Alexandra Kautzky-Willer; Peter Klimek
Journal:  JMIR Cardio       Date:  2021-10-04

3.  Using Caution When Interpreting Gender-Based Relative Risk. Comment on "The Effect of Cardiovascular Comorbidities on Women Compared to Men: Longitudinal Retrospective Analysis".

Authors:  Imre Janszky
Journal:  JMIR Cardio       Date:  2022-03-25
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.