MATERIALS AND METHODS: The calculated sample size was 128 subjects. The crown width/height, arch length, arch perimeter, and arch width of the maxilla and mandible were obtained via digital calliper (Mitutoyo, Japan). A total of 4325 variables were measured. The sex differences in the crown width and height were evaluated. Analysis of variance was applied to evaluate the differences between arch length, arch perimeter, and arch width groups.
RESULTS: Males had significantly larger mean values for crown width and height than females (P ≤ 0.05) for maxillary and mandibular arches, both. There were no significant differences observed for the crown width/height ratio in various arch length, arch perimeter, and arch width (intercanine, interpremolar, and intermolar) groups (P ≤ 0.05) in maxilla and mandible, both.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate sexual disparities in the crown width and height. Crown width and height has no significant relation to various arch length, arch perimeter, and arch width groups of maxilla and mandible. Thus, it may be helpful for orthodontic and prosthodontic case investigations and comprehensive management.
Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science for studies published from their starting dates to Aug 7, 2018. The sex-specific hazard ratios (HRs) and their pooled ratio (women vs men) of all-cause and CHD mortality associated with type 2 diabetes were obtained through an inverse variance-weighted random-effects meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were used to explore the potential sources of heterogeneity.
Results: The 35 analyzed prospective cohort studies included 2 314 292 individuals, among whom 254 038 all-cause deaths occurred. The pooled women vs men ratio of the HRs for all-cause and CHD mortality were 1.17 (95% CI: 1.12-1.23, I2 = 81.6%) and 1.97 (95% CI: 1.49-2.61, I2 = 86.4%), respectively. The pooled estimate of the HR for all-cause mortality was approximately 1.30 in articles in which the duration of follow-up was longer than 10 years and 1.10 in articles in which the duration of follow-up was less than 10 years. The pooled HRs for all-cause mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes was 2.33 (95% CI: 2.02-2.69) in women and 1.91 (95% CI: 1.72-2.12) in men, compared with their healthy counterparts.
Conclusions: The effect of diabetes on all-cause and CHD mortality is approximately 17 and 97% greater, respectively, for women than for men.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from two HF registries and five HFrEF RCTs were used to create three subpopulations: one RCT population (n = 16 917; 21.7% females), registry patients eligible for RCT inclusion (n = 26 104; 31.8% females), and registry patients ineligible for RCT inclusion (n = 20 810; 30.2% females). Clinical endpoints included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and first HF hospitalization at 1 year. Males and females were equally eligible for trial enrolment (56.9% of females and 55.1% of males in the registries). One-year mortality rates were 5.6%, 14.0%, and 28.6% for females and 6.9%, 10.7%, and 24.6% for males in the RCT, RCT-eligible, and RCT-ineligible groups, respectively. After adjusting for 11 HF prognostic variables, RCT females showed higher survival compared to RCT-eligible females (standardized mortality ratio [SMR] 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-0.83), while RCT males showed higher adjusted mortality rates compared to RCT-eligible males (SMR 1.16; 95% CI 1.09-1.24). Similar results were also found for cardiovascular mortality (SMR 0.89; 95% CI 0.76-1.03 for females, SMR 1.43; 95% CI 1.33-1.53 for males).
CONCLUSION: Generalizability of HFrEF RCTs differed substantially between the sexes, with females having lower trial participation and female trial participants having lower mortality rates compared to similar females in the registries, while males had higher than expected cardiovascular mortality rates in RCTs compared to similar males in registries.