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

BMC Primary Care

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)

	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)	0.76^c
Hospital admission	2.39(1.37-4.19)	< 0.01	3.45(1.76-6.78)	< 0.01	2.30(0.99-5.30)	0.05^c

The following variables were selected as potential confounders for multivariable analysis (binary Logistic regression, inclusion of all variables):
^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).
^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).
^c values should be interpreted with caution as the Marburg CHD score discriminates better for patients with chronic stable CHD

ISSN: 2731-4553