Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Sex-Specific COVID-19 Clinical Outcomes

  1. Thushara Galbadage
  2. Brent M. Peterson
  3. Joseph Awada
  4. Alison S. Buck
  5. Danny A. Ramirez
  6. Jason Wilson
  7. Richard S. Gunasekera

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3389/fmed.2020.00348
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.11.20098673: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variableThe search terms and keywords used to identify research studies for the meta-analysis were: COVID-19, male, female, men, women, sex, and gender.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    2.1 Literature Search and Research Study Selection: We performed a comprehensive systematic research literature search of three online databases, PubMed (
    PubMed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    The use of non-randomized studies for the meta-analysis is a limitation of this study. However, Abraham et al. (2010) suggested that, in the absence of randomized, controlled trials, that a well-designed meta-analysis is used non-randomized controlled trials can also present a high level of evidence (Abraham et al., 2010). The four clinical outcome categories (overall, severe, critical, mortality) exhibited different levels of heterogeneity in our random-effects models. The explanation for these differences is most likely the region of the studies done within each category. The 23 overall studies exhibited 64% heterogeneity with one from Singapore and one from Great Britain. The eight severe studies exhibited 0% heterogeneity, all being from China. The nine critical studies exhibited 83% heterogeneity, with five from China, three from Europe, and one from the United States. The six mortality studies exhibited 35% heterogeneity, with five from China and one from Korea. The use of a randomized effects model for our meta-analysis takes into account these heterogeneities observed between different studies and regions. Based on the random-effects models shown, there appears to be a difference in the proportions of males with COVID-19 between at least some of the studies or regions. Due to the study designs, their sampling methods, and limited regions included in this study, it is neither possible nor wise to be more specific. This is a potential avenue for further research. Our me...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.11.20098673v1 on medRxiv