Introduction. Coronary heart disease is the leading cause
of death in women. However, the prevalence of coronary heart
disease is lower for women at every age than is the prevalence
in men. This lower prevalence makes the predictive values of
any diagnostic test for coronary artery disease lower in women
than in men. This project evaluated the various guidelines
that have been promulgated to determine how successfully they
navigate the difficult issues of prevalence and predictive
value.
Methods. Review of articles and textbooks that discussed
the evaluation of coronary heart disease specifically in women
were identified. References from these works were obtained.
These references were then reviewed using pre-established
criteria for methodologic adequacy and size of experimental
groups, and each reference was graded on five point scale.
Discussions of evaluation of coronary heart disease in women
were then assessed based on the grade of evidence each
utilized.
Results. A wide spectrum of references were identified,
spanning from well conducted large trials with a clearly
defined gold standard, to references to individual expert
opinion. Guidelines on the evaluation of coronary disease in
women varied widely in the strength of evidence they utilized
to arrive at their recommendations.
Conclusions. A certain degree of skepticism is appropriate
when approaching practice guidelines. Seemingly authoritative
discussions of a topic may be based on less-than-optimal data.
Complicated and intricate areas of the medical literature such
as the evaluation of heart disease in women serve to highlight
the rather varied statistical savvy and critical evaluation of
the medical literature found in writers of guidelines.