• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

BMJ Open . Sex difference in coronavirus disease (COVID-19): a systematic review and meta-analysis

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
BMJ Open


. 2020 Oct 6;10(10):e040129.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040129.
Sex difference in coronavirus disease (COVID-19): a systematic review and meta-analysis


Biruk Beletew Abate[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Ayelign Mengesha Kassie[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Mesfin Wudu Kassaw[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Teshome Gebremeskel Aragie[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Setamlak Adane Masresha[SUP] 3 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

Objective: To assess the sex difference in the prevalence of COVID-19 confirmed cases.
Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Setting: PubMed, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar were searched for related information. The authors developed a data extraction form on an Excel sheet and the following data from eligible studies were extracted: author, country, sample size, number of female patients and number of male patients. Using STATA V.14 for analysis, the authors pooled the overall prevalence of men and/or women using a random-effect meta-analysis model. The authors examined the heterogeneity in effect size using Q statistics and I[SUP]2[/SUP] statistics. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed. Publication bias was also checked.
Participants: Studies on COVID-19 confirmed cases were included.
Intervention: Sex (male/female) of COVID-19 confirmed cases was considered.
Primary and secondary outcome measures: The primary outcome was prevalence of COVID-19 among men and women.
Results: A total of 57 studies with 221 195 participants were used in the analysis. The pooled prevalence of COVID-19 among men was found to be 55.00 (51.43-56.58, I[SUP]2[/SUP]=99.5%, p<0.001). Sensitivity analysis showed the findings were not dependent on a single study. Moreover, a funnel plot showed symmetrical distribution. Egger's regression test p value was not significant, which indicates absence of publication bias in both outcomes.
Conclusions: The prevalence of symptomatic COVID-19 was found to be higher in men than in women. The high prevalence of smoking and alcohol consumption contributed to the high prevalence of COVID-19 among men. Additional studies on the discrepancies in severity and mortality rate due to COVID-19 among men and women and the associated factors are recommended.

Keywords: epidemiology; immunology; infectious diseases.
 
Back
Top Bottom