Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Gender differences (OR: female vs. male patients) of 6 process indicators adjusted for different models (n = 1249; OR > 1: more frequent with male patients)

From: Gender bias revisited: new insights on the differential management of chest pain

  Gender (univariate) Gender (adj. for age, cardiac risk factors)a Gender (adj. for Marburg CHD score)b
  OR (95% CI) p-value Adj. OR (95% CI) p-value Adj. OR (95% CI) p-value
GP assumes CHD being the cause of chest pain 1.26 (0.96-1.68) 0.10 1.25(0.89-1.76) 0.21 0.79(0.49-1.29) 0.35
Exercise test 1.83 (1.12-2.98) 0.02 1.96 (1.18-3.24) < 0.01 1.21(0.62-2.36) 0.57
Referral cardiologist 1.13(0.80-1.60) 0.50 1.03(0.72-1.48) 0.87 0.73(0.45-1.18) 0.20
Exercise test or referral cardiologist 1.35(1.00-1.81) 0.05 1.31 (0.96-1.78) 0.09 0.88(0.59-1.32) 0.54
GP assumes ACS being the cause of chest pain 1.56 (0.85-2.85) 0.15 1.70 (0.81-3.58) 0.16 1.17(0.43-3.18) 0.76c
Hospital admission 2.39(1.37-4.19) < 0.01 3.45(1.76-6.78) < 0.01 2.30(0.99-5.30) 0.05c
  1. The following variables were selected as potential confounders for multivariable analysis (binary Logistic regression, inclusion of all variables):
  2. a age (years), CHD (as reference diagnosis for process indicators 1-4), indication for urgent hospital admission (as reference diagnosis for process indicators 5 and 6), known clinical vascular disease, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus, smoking, hypertension, obesity, positive family history for CHD. Except age which was coded continuously (35-99), all other predictors were binary coded (0 or 1).
  3. b results of the Marburg CHD score for each patient, CHD (as reference diagnosis for process indicators 1-4), indication for urgent hospital admission (as reference diagnosis for process indicators 5 and 6). The Marburg CHD Score was coded categorical (0-5 points).
  4. c values should be interpreted with caution as the Marburg CHD score discriminates better for patients with chronic stable CHD