This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Letters to the Editor (2) Coronary Heart Disease (72) Cross-Sectional Studies in Public Health (208) Electronic Health Records (966) Cardiovascular Disease Prevention (114) Cardiac Risk and Cardiac Risk Calculators (32)

Published on in Vol 6, No 1 (2022): Jan-Jun

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/34647, first published .
Using Caution When Interpreting Gender-Based Relative Risk. Comment on “The Effect of Cardiovascular Comorbidities on Women Compared to Men: Longitudinal Retrospective Analysis”

Using Caution When Interpreting Gender-Based Relative Risk. Comment on “The Effect of Cardiovascular Comorbidities on Women Compared to Men: Longitudinal Retrospective Analysis”

Using Caution When Interpreting Gender-Based Relative Risk. Comment on “The Effect of Cardiovascular Comorbidities on Women Compared to Men: Longitudinal Retrospective Analysis”

Authors of this article:

Imre Janszky1 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by (1) Tweetations (4) Metrics

Journals

  1. Dervic E, Deischinger C, Haug N, Leutner M, Kautzky-Willer A, Klimek P. Authors’ Reply to: Using Caution When Interpreting Gender-Based Relative Risk. Comment on “The Effect of Cardiovascular Comorbidities on Women Compared to Men: Longitudinal Retrospective Analysis”. JMIR Cardio 2022;6(1):e36801 View