4.5 Article

Gender differences and disparities in all-cause and coronary heart disease mortality: Epidemiological aspects

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.beem.2013.05.013

关键词

coronary heart disease; diabetes; gender differences; lifestyle; stress; testosterone

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging [AG07181, AG028507]
  2. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [DK31801]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This overview is primarily concerned with large recent prospective cohort studies of adult populations, not patients, because the latter studies are confounded by differences in medical and surgical management for men vs. women. When early papers are uniquely informative they are also included. Because the focus is on epidemiology, details of age, sex, sample size, and source as well as study methods are provided. Usually the primary outcomes were all-cause or coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality using baseline data from midlife or older adults. Fifty years ago few prospective cohort studies of all-cause or CHD mortality included women. Most epidemiologic studies that included community-dwelling adults did not include both sexes and still do not report men and women separately. Few studies consider both sex (biology) and gender (behavior and environment) differences. Lifespan studies describing survival after live birth are not considered here. The important effects of prenatal and early childhood biologic and behavioral factors on adult mortality are beyond the scope of this review. Clinical trials are not discussed. Overall, presumptive evidence for causality was equivalent for psychosocial and biological exposures, and these attributes were often associated with each other. Inconsistencies or gaps were particularly obvious for studies of sex or gender differences in age and optimal measures of body size for CHD outcomes, and in the striking interface of diabetes and people with the metabolic syndrome, most of whom have unrecognized diabetes. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据