Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 15, 2026.

Male sex identified by global COVID-19 meta-analysis as a risk factor for death and ITU admission

Hannah Peckham, Nina M. de Gruijter, Charles Raine and 6 more (opens in a new tab)

Nature Communications · 2020 · Meta-analysis · CC BY

doi:10.1038/s41467-020-19741-6 (opens in a new tab)

Abstract

Anecdotal evidence suggests that Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, exhibits differences in morbidity and mortality between sexes. Here, we present a meta-analysis of 3,111,714 reported global cases to demonstrate that, whilst there is no difference in the proportion of males and females with confirmed COVID-19, male patients have almost three times the odds of requiring intensive treatment unit (ITU) admission (OR = 2.84; 95% CI = 2.06, 3.92) and higher odds of death (OR = 1.39; 95% CI = 1.31, 1.47) compared to females. With few exceptions, the sex bias observed in COVID-19 is a worldwide phenomenon. An appreciation of how sex is influencing COVID-19 outcomes will have important implications for clinical management and mitigation strategies for this disease.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 15, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

Introduction

A consistent feature of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is the male bias towards severe disease–. Despite this, there are few analyses addressing whether this is a global rather than regional phenomenon. There are limited data that indicate whether the bias towards increased mortality in males is due to an increased proportion of infections in males, or a true representation of more severe disease. This gap in the literature highlights that sex remains an under-appreciated variable when interrogating outcomes in infectious diseases.

To address whether the reported sex-bias is validated by large-scale statistical analysis of global data, we have collected available case data from 90 reports including 46 different countries and 44 US states totalling 3,111,714 infected cases, and present a meta-analysis to investigate sex as a risk factor for SARS-CoV-2 infection, and COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. We demonstrate that while there is no difference in the proportion of males and females infected with SARS-CoV-2, males face higher odds of both intensive therapy unit (ITU) admission and death compared to females. The confirmation of this sex disparity with global data has important implications for the continuing public health response to this pandemic.

Source selection and inclusion

To interrogate the sex-bias in the global COVID-19 pandemic, 107 reports were gathered from across the world, from 1st January 2020 until the 1st June 2020 (Fig. 1). Reports were included if they contained data on the total number of infections by sex, and the severity of disease as measured by admission to ITU and death (n = 92). Most reports (n = 88) were government websites, one report was from the British Medical Journal Global Health Blog website, and a minority comprised published research articles (n = 3), from which data were captured from full text. Importantly, sex disaggregated data for the United States of America (USA) were only available at individual state levels. Data from individual states were therefore analysed as separate regions to account for differences in how the data may have been collected. Reports were excluded if they did not report the overall number of infections by sex (one ITU case series and three mortality case series), or had small case numbers (less than five). Of the remaining 102 reports, multiple early reports originated from China, which were carefully examined for duplication. Following the exclusion of nine reports due to possible duplication, and one report from Canada with a large percentage of cases with unknown sex, a total of 92 reports from 47 different countries were analysed further (Supplementary Data 1)–. The 92 reports included three reports from China, the largest of which included data on confirmed cases by sex and mortality by sex, but not ITU admission by sex. For this reason, the other two Chinese reports, were included in the analysis of ITU admission by sex, but were excluded from the analyses of confirmed cases and mortality by sex as it was likely these two reports overlapped with the larger report of Chinese cases.

Final reports and cases contributing to analysis: Ninety reports described the sex of 3,111,714 infected cases in 46 countries and 44 US states. Eight reports, representing 341,571 cases described 12,067 ITU admissions by sex. Seventy-one reports included mortality by sex, and after exclusion of the one possible overlapping report from China, 70 reports describing the sex of 2,751,115 COVID-19 cases and 214,361 related deaths were included in the final analysis. Counts of confirmed male cases and male deaths were calculated for 23 and 13 sources, respectively as these sources reported percentages and not counts. Thirty-four sources included a small proportion of cases of unknown sex and 17 sources included a small proportion of deaths of unknown sex (Supplementary Data 1).

Meta-analyses of infection, ITU and mortality risks: The proportion of male cases with COVID-19 in these reports was exactly half at 0.50 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.48,0.51; p = 0.56; n = 3,111,714), demonstrating that males and females have similar numbers of infections (Fig. 2). Male sex was associated with increased odds of ITU admission (odds ratio (OR) = 2.84; 95% CI = 2.06, 3.92; p = 1.86 × 10−10; n = 341,571) (Fig. 3), and increased odds of death (OR = 1.39; 95% CI = 1.31,1.47; p = 5.00 × 10−30; n = 2,751,115) (Fig. 4).

Funnel plots and sensitivity analyses indicated that the results for the estimated proportion of male cases and the estimated OR for ITU admission in men were unlikely to be influenced by reporting bias; however, the estimated OR for mortality in men may be an underestimate (Supplementary Information). Taken together these data highlight that, whilst there is no difference in the proportion of COVID-19 cases between sexes, men have a higher risk of ITU admission (OR 2.84) and death (OR 1.39).

Discussion

Here we present a large-scale global statistical analysis to show that whilst males and females are at equivalent risk of infection, male sex is associated with the development of severe disease as measured by ITU admission (OR = 2.84; 95% CI = 2.06, 3.92; p = 1.86 × 10−10) and death (OR = 1.39; 95% CI = 1.31,1.47; p = 5.00 × 10−30). Despite this notable feature of the pandemic, sex is still not routinely reported in all available regional data.

Sex differences in the prevalence and outcomes of infectious diseases occur at all ages, with an overall higher burden of bacterial, viral, fungal and parasitic infections in human males–. Previous coronavirus outbreaks have demonstrated the same sex bias. The Hong Kong SARS-CoV-1 epidemic showed an age-adjusted relative mortality risk ratio of 1.62 (95% CI = 1.21, 2.16) for males. During the same outbreak in Singapore, male sex was associated with an odds ratio of 3.10 (95% CI = 1.64, 5.87; p ≤ 0.001) for ITU admission or death. The Saudi Arabian MERS outbreak in 2013 - 2014 exhibited a case fatality rate of 52% in men and 23% in women. These data suggest that, whilst socio-economic factors may be influencing some aspects of the pandemic, fundamental differences in the immune response between males and females are likely to be a driving factor behind the significant sex-bias observed in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Sex differences in both the innate and adaptive immune system have been previously reported and may account for the female advantage in COVID-19. Within the adaptive immune system, females have higher numbers of CD4+ T cells–, more robust CD8+ T cell cytotoxic activity, and increased B cell production of immunoglobulin compared to males,. Women report more severe local and systemic side effects, and produce higher antibody titres in response to the trivalent inactivated seasonal influenza vaccination (TIV), as well as to most other pathogen vaccines. More specifically, females achieve equivalent protective antibody titres to males at half the dose of TIV, with serum testosterone levels inversely correlating with TIV antibody titres. Female B cells also produce more antigen-specific IgG in response to TIV. These findings imply that females have an increased capacity to mount humoral immune responses compared to males, and together with the data from this meta-analysis, may have important implications for the development of vaccination strategies for COVID-19.

Females produce more type 1 interferon (IFN), a potent anti-viral cytokine, upon toll-like receptor 7 sensing of viral RNA than males–, which is important for the early response in COVID-19. Increased IFN production by females is associated with both sex hormone concentration and the number of X chromosomes present,. The X chromosome contains many immune-related genes, as evidenced by the existence of many X-linked immunodeficiency disorders. Furthermore X-encoded immune genes may be variably expressed on both alleles in immune cells in females, increasing immune response diversity,. Oestradiol offers an advantage against infectious disease by augmenting T cell responses,–, increasing antibody production, somatic hyper-mutation and class switching. Oestradiol also increases abundance of neutrophils; and monocyte/macrophage cytokine production.

An early report in pre-print suggested that the declining oestrogen levels in post-menopausal women may be associated with increased inflammatory cytokine production following infection with SARS-CoV-2. This suggests a potential protective effect of oestradiol against the development of hyperinflammatory immune responses associated with mortality in COVID-19. In contrast, the male sex hormone testosterone suppresses the immune system: hypo-androgenism is associated with increased inflammatory cytokines, antibody titres, CD4/CD8 ratios, and natural killer cells, and a decrease in regulatory T cells,. Interestingly, testosterone-deprivation therapy for prostate cancer has been associated with improved outcomes for COVID-19, suggesting that suppression of the immune response by testosterone, as well as the protective effect of oestrogen, may underlie the observed sex-bias.

Age-related changes in the immune system are also different between sexes and there is a marked association between morbidity/mortality and advanced age in COVID-19. For example, males show an age-related decline in B cells and a trend towards accelerated immune ageing,. This may further contribute to the sex bias seen in COVID-19.

Other biological factors may influence the sex-bias observed in this study. Expression of angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors – which facilitate SARS-CoV-2 viral entry and human to human transmission – is different between the sexes,. Oestradiol may influence ACE2 expression, and the gene for ACE2 is located in the X chromosome, which may render it susceptible to escaping X-inactivation in women.

Sex-based differences in co-morbidities that are associated with severe COVID-19 may also drive some of the differences observed in this study. However, due to the nature of these high level, publicly available summary data, metadata including age, ethnicity and comorbidities for individual cases are not available. The lack of adjustment for these factors limits our ability to accurately predict the role of sex in disease severity. Notably, there are no marked sex differences in the proportions of adults globally with hypertension (33% of women vs 36% of men) or diabetes (9% of women vs 9.6% of men), the most common reported comorbidities in hospitalised COVID-19 patients. Once more data become available, future studies can adjust for additional factors using techniques such as mediation analysis.

Gender-based socio-cultural and behavioural differences could contribute to the sex difference seen in COVID-19 disease severity. Men are more likely to smoke, although smoking has not emerged as a clear risk factor for severe disease. Men are less likely to wash their hands with soap after entering a restroom, and in many cultures, men may be more likely to leave the house and enter crowded areas. Unequal access to healthcare and testing between sexes may skew towards a male bias in infection rates. The data, however, show no difference in the numbers of infected cases between sexes overall, so gender differences in hygiene behaviours and testing are unlikely to explain the sex disparity in disease severity. Regional gender differences in health-seeking behaviours and access to care may predispose men towards access to hospital and ITU admission–. However, the ubiquitous nature of the sex-bias in these data argues for a true biological difference in the response to SARS-CoV-2 between sexes.

These large-scale data demonstrate that although there is no sex difference in the proportion of people infected with SARS-CoV-2, males are at a significantly higher risk of severe disease and death than females. Previous reports describe fundamental differences between sexes in the immune response to infection, which include a more robust antiviral innate interferon response and increased adaptive immunity towards viral antigens in females. In people infected with SARS-CoV-2 these differences are likely to lead to more effective viral control in females, which may contribute to the relatively lower risk of developing severe disease. Although further studies are needed, these data have implications for the clinical management of COVID-19 and highlight the importance of considering sex as a variable in fundamental and clinical research.

Search strategy

An online search of government websites and published literature was performed by multiple researchers working remotely for regional data reports on COVID-19 cases that included sex as a variable from 01 January 2020 up until 01 June 2020 (Search terms: SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19/case/sex/country/data/death/ICU/ITU). In order to ensure unbiased representation from as many regions as possible, a cross check was done using the list of countries reporting data on ‘Worldometer’, and an attempt was made to include as many regions reporting sex data as possible. Reports were translated using Google translate if they were not in English.

Data selection, extraction and synthesis

Reports were included if they contained sex as a variable in data describing case number, ITU admission, or mortality. Data were entered directly by individual researchers into an online structured data extraction table. For some sources, counts of male confirmed cases or male deaths were not provided, but percentages of male cases or male deaths were provided instead. To include these sources and avoid biases that might be introduced by their exclusion, we calculated counts of male confirmed cases and male deaths from the reported percentages with rounding to the nearest integer. We acknowledge that this approach assumes that the reported percentages are reflective of the true percentages. For some sources, data included confirmed cases and deaths of unknown sex. For these sources, the reported totals were used where the proportion of unknown sex was small (see Supplementary Data 1). This approach was preferred to excluding cases of unknown sex in order to avoid bias. The estimates represent the proportion of known male infections and ORs for mortality associated with known male sex, and will differ slightly from what the true values would be if the sex had been reported for all cases. Data were available at the level of country or regional summary data representing distinct individuals for each report, but not at the level of covariates for all individuals within a study. Consequently, covariates such as lifestyle, comorbidities, testing method and case type (hospital vs. community) could not be controlled for. Data represent unique individuals at a single time snapshot. All data are provided in Supplementary Data 1– and 10.25375/uct.12952151.

Data analysis

Meta-analysis was performed to estimate an overall proportion of male infected cases with 95% CI. This meta-analysis was two-sided and tested the null hypothesis that the proportion of male infected cases was 0.5. For this analysis, the classic inverse variance method for estimation of single proportions and standard errors was used, which uses logit-transformed proportions. The inverse variance method accounts for differing sample sizes of individual studies by weighting studies by the variance of their estimates, such that small studies with large variance have less weighting, and large studies with small variance have more weighting. A sensitivity analysis was also performed, in which the generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) method was used to estimate an overall proportion. This yielded identical results, indicating the differing assumptions of these different methods were inconsequential for these data.

Meta-analyses were also performed to estimate ORs with 95% CI associated with male sex for ITU admission and death, based on pooled average effect measures that were weighted according to the size and precision of each report. Random effects models were estimated and are reported rather than fixed effects models, since these do not assume uniformity across reports and account for variance between reports. The Mantel-Haenszel and DerSimonian-Laird methods were used to calculate the fixed effects and random effects estimates, respectively. Similar to the inverse variance weighting method, individual studies are weighted according to size and variance, and estimates were almost identical when the inverse variance weighting method was used. Both of these meta-analyses for the ITU admission and death outcomes were two-sided and tested the null hypothesis that the estimated OR was 1. Reports that did not contain the data required to calculate ORs were automatically excluded from meta-analyses.

Meta-analyses were performed using R version 3.6.1 and the “meta” package version 4.11-0. All R code and input data are available at https://github.com/claire-deakin/covid19-sex-bias and at 10.25375/uct.12952151.

Reporting Summary

Further information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article.

References 158

  1. 1.
    The species Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus: classifying 2019-nCoV and naming it SARS-CoV-2 · 2020
    No notice
  2. 2.

    Scully EP, Haverfield J, Ursin RL, Tannenbaum C, Klein SL. Considering how biological sex impacts immune responses and COVID-19 outcomes. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2020;20:442-447.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41577-020-0348-8 (opens in a new tab)

  3. 3.

    Richardson S, et al. Presenting Characteristics, Comorbidities, and Outcomes Among 5700 Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 in the New York City Area. JAMA. 2020;323:2052.

    Not in our library10.1001/jama.2020.6775 (opens in a new tab)

  4. 4.

    Singh, S., Chowdhry, M., Chatterjee, A. & Khan, A. Gender-Based Disparities in COVID-19: Clinical Characteristics and Propensity-matched Analysis of Outcomes. medRxiv10.1101/2020.04.24.20079046 (2020).

    Not in our library

  5. 5.

    Kragholm, K. et al. Association between male sex and outcomes of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) - a Danish nationwide, register-based study. Clin. Infect. Dis. 10.1093/cid/ciaa924 (2020).

    Not in our library10.1093/cid/ciaa924 (opens in a new tab)

  6. 6.
    Gender Differences in Patients With COVID-19: Focus on Severity and Mortality · 2020
    No notice
  7. 7.

    Australian Government Department of Health. Coronavirus (COVID-19) current situation and case numbers|Australian Government Department of Health. https://www.health.gov.au/news/health-alerts/novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov-health-alert/coronavirus-covid-19-current-situation-and-case-numbers#total-cases-recoveries-and-deaths (2020).

    Not in our library

  8. 8.

    L’institut de Santé Sciensano. Epistat – Covid-19 Belgium Epidemiological Situationhttps://epistat.wiv-isp.be/Covid/covid-19.html (2020).

    Not in our library

  9. 9.

    Yang, X. et al. Clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a single-centered, retrospective, observational study. Lancet Respir. Med. 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30079-5 (2020).

    Not in our library10.1016/s2213-2600(20)30079-5 (opens in a new tab)

  10. 10.

    The Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia Emergency Response Epidemiology Team. The Epidemiological Characteristics of an Outbreak of 2019 Novel Coronavirus Diseases (COVID-19) — China, 2020. China CDC Wkly. 2020;2:113-122.

    Not in our library10.46234/ccdcw2020.032 (opens in a new tab)

  11. 11.

    Wang D, et al. Clinical Characteristics of 138 Hospitalized Patients With 2019 Novel Coronavirus–Infected Pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA. 2020;323:1061-1069.

    Not in our library10.1001/jama.2020.1585 (opens in a new tab)

  12. 12.

    Statens Serum Institut. COVID-19 i Danmark - Epidemiologisk overvågningsrapport - 19-05-2020 – data opdateret kl. 08:00. https://files.ssi.dk/COVID19-overvaagningsrapport-19052020-d2l8 (2020).

    Not in our library

  13. 13.

    Sante Publique France. COVID-19: point épidémiologique du 15 mars 2020. https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/maladies-et-traumatismes/maladies-et-infections-respiratoires/infection-a-coronavirus/documents/bulletin-national/covid-19-point-epidemiologique-du-15-mars-2020 (2020).

    Not in our library

  14. 14.

    Robert Koch Institute. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Daily Situation Report of the Robert Koch Institute. https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Situationsberichte/2020-05-21-en.pdf?__blob=publicationFile (2020).

    Not in our library

  15. 15.

    Purdie, A. et al. Sex, Gender and COVID-19: Disaggregated Data and Health Disparitieshttps://blogs.bmj.com/bmjgh/2020/03/24/sex-gender-and-covid-19-disaggregated-data-and-health-disparities/ (2020).

    Not in our library

  16. 16.

    Riccardo, F. et al. Epidemia COVID-19 - Aggiornamento nazionale 14 maggio 2020 – ore 16:00 - Prodotto dall’Istituto Superiore di Sanità (ISS). https://www.epicentro.iss.it/coronavirus/bollettino/Bollettino-sorveglianza-integrata-COVID-19_14-maggio-2020.pdf (2020).

    Not in our library

  17. 17.

    RIVM Nederlands. Epidemiologische situatie COVID-19 in Nederland Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu - RIVM 26 mei 2020, 10:00. https://www.rivm.nl/coronavirus-covid-19/grafieken (2020).

    Not in our library

  18. 18.

    Folkehelseinstituttet. COVID-19 Dagsrapport mandag 25. mai 2020. https://www.fhi.no/contentassets/e110607a67df46cbba8e30a443264a73/vedlegg/2020.05.25-dagsrapport-norge-covid-19.pdf (2020).

    Not in our library

  19. 19.

    Ministry of Health Portugal. COVID-19 RELATÓRIO DE SITUAÇÃO 24 MAIO. https://www.dgs.pt/em-destaque/relatorio-de-situacao-n-083-24052020.aspx (2020).

    Not in our library

  20. 20.

    KCDC. Updates on COVID-19 in Republic of Koreahttps://www.cdc.go.kr/board/board.es?mid=a30402000000&bid=0030 (2020).

    Not in our library

  21. 21.

    Gobierno de Espana Ministerio De Sanidad. Actualización no113. Enfermedad por el coronavirus (COVID-19). 22.05.2020 (datos consolidados a las 00:00 horas del 22.05.2020) SITUACIÓN EN ESPAÑA. https://www.mscbs.gob.es/profesionales/saludPublica/ccayes/alertasActual/nCov-China/documentos/Actualizacion_113_COVID-19.pdf (2020).

    Not in our library

  22. 22.

    L’Office fédéral de la santé publique. COVID-19 - Situation Suisse: Répartition par canton, âge et sexe 26-5-20https://covid-19-schweiz.bagapps.ch/fr-1.html (2020).

    Not in our library

  23. 23.

    Republic of Ireland Department of Health. Statement from the National Public Health Emergency Team - Sunday 31 Mayhttps://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/be38b-statement-from-the-national-public-health-emergency-team-sunday-31-may/ (2020).

    Not in our library

  24. 24.

    Gobierno de Chile, M. de S. Informe Ejecutivo Sobre La Situación Epidemiológicahttps://epivigila.minsal.cl/ (2020).

    Not in our library

  25. 25.

    Folkhälsomyndigheten Sweden. FOHM Covid-19https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/09f821667ce64bf7be6f9f87457ed9aa (2020).

    Not in our library

  26. 26.

    Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare. Situation Update On Coronavirus 26 May 17.05https://thl.fi/en/web/infectious-diseases/what-s-new/coronavirus-covid-19-latest-updates/situation-update-on-coronavirus#Coronavirus-related_deaths (2020).

    Not in our library

  27. 27.

    Ministerstvo zdravotnictví České republiky. COVID-19: Přehled Aktuální Situace v ČR 26-5-2020https://onemocneni-aktualne.mzcr.cz/covid-19 (2020).

    Not in our library

  28. 28.

    INSP Romania. Covid 19 Raport saptamanal de supraveghere Date raportate pana la data de 24 mai. https://www.cnscbt.ro/index.php/analiza-cazuri-confirmate-covid19/1789-raport-saptamanal-episaptamana22/file (2020).

    Not in our library

  29. 29.

    Bundesministerium für Soziales Gesundheit Pflege und Konsumentenschutz. Amtliches Dashboard COVID19 öffentlich zugängliche Informationen zuletzt aktualisiert 26.05.2020 20:00:00https://info.gesundheitsministerium.at/dashboard_GenTod.html?l=de (2020).

    Not in our library

  30. 30.

    Ministry of Health Saudi Arabia. MOH News - MOH:+45,000 Recoveries and No Critical Cases or Deaths among Childrenhttps://www.moh.gov.sa/en/Ministry/MediaCenter/News/Pages/News-2020-05-25-001.aspx (2020).

    Not in our library

  31. 31.

    Ministry of Health, G. Ανακοίνωση για την εξέλιξη της νόσου COVID-19 στη χώρα μας (25/5/2020) - Δελτία Τύπου - Υπουργείο Υγείαςhttps://www.moh.gov.gr/articles/ministry/grafeio-typoy/press-releases/7214-anakoinwsh-gia-thn-ekseliksh-ths-nosoy-covid-19-sth-xwra-mas-25-5-2020 (2020).

    Not in our library

  32. 32.

    Republic of Estonia Health Board. COVID-19 andmed seisuga 11.05.2020. https://www.terviseamet.ee/sites/default/files/Nakkushaigused/COVID-19/ulevaade_11.05.2020.pdf (2020).

    Not in our library

  33. 33.

    Republic of the Philippines Department of Health. COVID-19 Trackerhttps://www.doh.gov.ph/covid19tracker (2020).

    Not in our library

  34. 34.

    Ministry of Health New Zealand. COVID-19 - Current Caseshttps://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-current-situation/covid-19-current-cases#gender (2020).

    Not in our library

  35. 35.

    Nacionalni inštitut za javno zdravje. Dnevno Spremljanje Okužb s SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Slovenijihttps://www.nijz.si/sl/dnevno-spremljanje-okuzb-s-sars-cov-2-covid-19 (2020).

    Not in our library

  36. 36.

    Public Health England. Weekly Surveillance Report in England Coronavirus (COVID-19). https://www.gov.uk/government/news/weekly-covid-19-surveillance-report-published (2020).

    Not in our library

  37. 37.

    Public Health Scotland. COVID-19 Statistical Reporthttps://beta.isdscotland.org/find-publications-and-data/population-health/covid-19/covid-19-statistical-report/ (2020).

    Not in our library

  38. 38.

    OCHA Pakistan. Pakistan COVID - 19 Dashboard as of 22nd of May 2020. https://reliefweb.int/report/pakistan/pakistan-covid-19-dashboard-22nd-may-2020 (2020).

    Not in our library

  39. 39.

    Instituto Nacional de Salud. Coronavirus Colombiahttps://www.ins.gov.co/Noticias/Paginas/Coronavirus.aspx (2020).

    Not in our library

  40. 40.

    Ministereo de Salud Publica Ecuador. Coronavirus Ecuador - verified information on the arrival of COVID-19 in the countryhttps://coronavirusecuador.com/data/ (2020).

    Not in our library

  41. 41.

    Gobierno de Mexico. COVID-19 Tablero Méxicohttps://coronavirus.gob.mx/datos/#DOView (2020).

    Not in our library

  42. 42.

    Ministry of Public Health Thailand. The Coronavirus Disease 2019 Situation. https://ddc.moph.go.th/viralpneumonia/eng/index.php (2020).

    Not in our library

  43. 43.

    Ministry of Health The Luxembourg Government. Coronavirus: COVID-19https://msan.gouvernement.lu/en/dossiers/2020/corona-virus.html (2020).

    Not in our library

  44. 44.

    Gugus Tugas Percepatan Penanganan COVID-19 Indonesia. Peta Sebaranhttps://covid19.go.id/peta-sebaran (2020).

    Not in our library

  45. 45.

    Ministerio de Salud Publica Republica Dominicana. República Dominicana Dirección General de Epidemiología Boletín especial #69 FECHA: 26/05/2020 HORA: 6:00pmhttps://www.msp.gob.do/web/?page_id=6948 (2020).

    Not in our library

  46. 46.

    Ministerio de Salud Argentina. Sala de Situación Coronavirus onlinehttps://www.argentina.gob.ar/salud/coronavirus-COVID-19/sala-situacion (2020).

    Not in our library

  47. 47.

    Northern Ireland Department of Health An Roinn Slainte Mannystrie O Poustie. COVID-19 Testing Detailshttps://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiZGYxNjYzNmUtOTlmZS00ODAxLWE1YTEtMjA0NjZhMzlmN2JmIiwidCI6IjljOWEzMGRlLWQ4ZDctNGFhNC05NjAwLTRiZTc2MjVmZjZjNSIsImMiOjh9 (2020).

    Not in our library

  48. 48.

    Ministry of Health Republic of Ghana. COVID-19 Updates Ghanahttps://www.ghanahealthservice.org/covid19/ (2020).

    Not in our library

  49. 49.

    Ministry of Health Somalia‏. COVID-19 Dashboard Somaliahttp://moh.gov.so/en/covid19/ (2020).

    Not in our library

  50. 50.

    Ministry of Health & Sanitation. Sierra Leone COVID-19 Updatehttps://mohs.gov.sl/2020/06/21/sierra-leone-covid-19-update/ (2020).

    Not in our library

  51. 51.

    Haiti Ministere De La Sante Publique et de la Population. Direction D’epidemiologie Des Laboratoire Set De La Recherchehttps://chis.sisnu.net:8444/covid19/ (2020).

    Not in our library

  52. 52.

    Ministry of Health & Wellness Jamaica. COVID-19 Update: 21 More Jamaicans Recoveredhttps://www.moh.gov.jm/covid-19-update-21-more-jamaicans-recovered/ (2020).

    Not in our library

  53. 53.

    Nigeria Centre for Disease Control. COVID-19 Situation Report Situation Report 92 Saturday, 30th May 2020https://ncdc.gov.ng/diseases/sitreps/?cat=14&name=An update of COVID-19 outbreak in Nigeria (2020).

    Not in our library

  54. 54.

    Bangladesh IEDCR. Bangladesh Covid-19 Updatehttps://www.iedcr.gov.bd/index.php/component/content/article/73-ncov-2019 (2020).

    Not in our library

  55. 55.

    New York State Department of Health. Workbook: NYS-COVID19-Trackerhttps://covid19tracker.health.ny.gov/views/NYS-COVID19-Tracker/NYSDOHCOVID-19Tracker-Map?%3Aembed=yes&%3Atoolbar=no&%3Atabs=n (2020).

    Not in our library

  56. 56.

    Texas Health and Human Services. COVID-19 In Texas (Dashboard)https://txdshs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/ed483ecd702b4298ab01e8b9cafc8b83 (2020).

    Not in our library

  57. 57.

    Illinois Department of Public Health. COVID-19 Statisticshttp://www.dph.illinois.gov/covid19/covid19-statistics (2020).

    Not in our library

  58. 58.

    Department of Health Pennsylvania. COVID-19 Data for Pennsylvaniahttps://www.health.pa.gov/topics/disease/coronavirus/Pages/May-Archive.aspx (2020).

    Not in our library

  59. 59.

    Massachusetts Department of Public Health. COVID-19 Dashboard of Public Health Indicators. https://www.mass.gov/doc/covid-19-dashboard-may-21-2020/download (2020).

    Not in our library

  60. 60.

    New Jersey Department of Health. COVID-19 Confirmed Case Summary. https://www.nj.gov/health/cd/documents/topics/NCOV/COVID_Confirmed_Case_Summary.pdf (2020).

    Not in our library

  61. 61.

    Michigan DHHS. Coronavirus - Michigan Datahttps://www.michigan.gov/coronavirus/0,9753,7-406-98163_98173-,00.html (2020).

    Not in our library

  62. 62.

    California Department of Public Health. COVID-19 Public Dashboardhttps://public.tableau.com/views/COVID-19PublicDashboard/Covid-19Public?:embed=y&:display_count=no&:showVizHome=no (2020).

    Not in our library

  63. 63.

    Washington State Department of Health. COVID-19 Data Dashboardhttps://www.doh.wa.gov/Emergencies/NovelCoronavirusOutbreak2020COVID19/DataDashboard (2020).

    Not in our library

  64. 64.

    Department of Health State of Louisiana. Louisiana Coronavirus COVID-19http://ldh.la.gov/Coronavirus/ (2020).

    Not in our library

  65. 65.

    Maryland Department of Health. Coronavirus Data Dashboardhttps://coronavirus.maryland.gov/ (2020).

    Not in our library

  66. 66.

    Virginia Department of Health. Coronavirus Cases in Virginiahttps://www.vdh.virginia.gov/coronavirus/ (2020).

    Not in our library

  67. 67.

    North Carolina DHHS. COVID-19: Caseshttps://covid19.ncdhhs.gov/dashboard/cases (2020).

    Not in our library

  68. 68.

    South Carolina DHEC. SC Demographic Data (COVID-19)https://www.scdhec.gov/infectious-diseases/viruses/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/sc-demographic-data-covid-19 (2020).

    Not in our library

  69. 69.

    Alabama Public Health. Alabama COVID19 Information Hubhttps://covid19.alabama.gov/#live-updates (2020).

    Not in our library

  70. 70.

    Mississippi State Department of Health. Coronavirus COVID-19https://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/14,0,420.html#Mississippi (2020).

    Not in our library

  71. 71.

    Ohio State Department of Health. COVID-19 Key Metrics Dashboard. https://coronavirus.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/covid-19/dashboards/key-metrics/cases (2020).

    Not in our library

  72. 72.

    Arkansas Department of Health. COVID-19 Case Updatehttps://experience.arcgis.com/experience/c2ef4a4fcbe5458fbf2e48a21e4fece9 (2020).

    Not in our library

  73. 73.

    The Indiana Data Hub. COVID-19 Case Demographicshttps://hub.mph.in.gov/dataset/covid-19-case-demographics/resource/2538d7f1-391b-4733-90b3-9e95cd5f3ea6 (2020).

    Not in our library

  74. 74.

    Wisconsin Department of Health Services. COVID-19: Wisconsin Caseshttps://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/covid-19/cases.htm (2020).

    Not in our library

  75. 75.

    Minnesota Dept of Health. Minnesota Department of Health WEEKLY COVID-19 REPORT 5/28/2020. https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/coronavirus/situation.html (2020).

    Not in our library

  76. 76.

    Florida State Health Department. Coronavirus: cases and laboratory testing over time. https://floridahealthcovid19.gov/ (2020).

    Not in our library

  77. 77.

    Kentucky Department of Public Health. KDPH COVID-19 Dashboardhttps://kygeonet.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/543ac64bc40445918cf8bc34dc40e334 (2020).

    Not in our library

  78. 78.

    Iowa Department of Public Health. Iowa COVID-19 Information—Case Countshttps://coronavirus.iowa.gov/pages/case-counts (2020).

    Not in our library

  79. 79.

    Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services. Missouri COVID-19 Dashboardhttp://mophep.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=8e01a5d8d8bd4b4f85add006f9e14a9d (2020).

    Not in our library

  80. 80.

    Connecticut Department of Public Health. COVID-19 Update May 28, 2020https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covid-net/purpose- (2020).

    Not in our library

  81. 81.

    Rhode Island Department of Health. COVID-19 Response Data Hubhttps://ri-department-of-health-covid-19-data-rihealth.hub.arcgis.com/ (2020).

    Not in our library

  82. 82.

    NH Division of Public Health Services. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in New Hampshire Weekly Summary Report - May 18, 2020. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-state-detail.html. (2020).

    Not in our library

  83. 83.

    Vermont Department of Health. VT COVID-19 Dashboard - Public Beta v.1.0https://vcgi.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/6128a0bc9ae14e98a686b635001ef7a7 (2020).

    Not in our library

  84. 84.

    Maine DHHS. Novel Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) Airborne Disease Surveillance Epidemiology Programhttps://www.maine.gov/dhhs/mecdc/infectious-disease/epi/airborne/coronavirus.shtml#situation (2020).

    Not in our library

  85. 85.

    Oklahoma State Department of Health. COVID-19 Current Situationhttps://coronavirus.health.ok.gov/ (2020).

    Not in our library

  86. 86.

    Alaska Department of Health and Social Services. Alaska Coronavirus Responsehttps://coronavirus-response-alaska-dhss.hub.arcgis.com/ (2020).

    Not in our library

  87. 87.

    Arizona Department of Health Services. ADHS - Data Dashboardhttps://www.azdhs.gov/preparedness/epidemiology-disease-control/infectious-disease-epidemiology/covid-19/dashboards/index.php (2020).

    Not in our library

  88. 88.

    Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Colorado Official State Web Portalhttps://covid19.colorado.gov/covid-19-data (2020).

    Not in our library

  89. 89.

    Delaware Environmental Public Health Tracking Network. State of Delaware – My Healthy Communityhttps://myhealthycommunity.dhss.delaware.gov/locations/state (2020).

    Not in our library

  90. 90.

    West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)https://dhhr.wv.gov/COVID-19/Pages/default.aspx (2020).

    Not in our library

  91. 91.

    Oregon Public Health Division. COVID-19 Weekly Report Published May 19, 2020. https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/DISEASESCONDITIONS/DISEASESAZ/Emerging Respitory Infectio (2020).

    Not in our library

  92. 92.

    North Dakota Health. North Dakota Coronavirus Caseshttps://www.health.nd.gov/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/north-dakota-coronavirus-cases (2020).

    Not in our library

  93. 93.

    New Mexico Department of Health. COVID-19 Public Dashboardhttps://cvprovider.nmhealth.org/public-dashboard.html (2020).

    Not in our library

  94. 94.

    Nevada Department of Health and Human Services. Coronavirus (COVID-19) in Nevadahttps://nvhealthresponse.nv.gov/ (2020).

    Not in our library

  95. 95.

    Montana Communicable Disease Epidemiology. Interim Analysis of COVID-19 cases in Montana (as of 5/15/2020). https://dphhs.mt.gov/publichealth/cdepi/diseases/coronavirusmt/demographics (2020).

    Not in our library

  96. 96.

    Kansas Department of Health & Environment. COVID-19 Cases in Kansashttps://www.coronavirus.kdheks.gov/160/COVID-19-in-Kansas (2020).

    Not in our library

  97. 97.

    Idaho Division of Public Health. DPH Idaho COVID-19 Dashboard.V2https://public.tableau.com/profile/idaho.division.of.public.health#!/vizhome/DPHIdahoCOVID-19Dashboard_V2/Story1 (2020).

    Not in our library

  98. 98.

    Wyoming Department of Health. COVID-19 Map and Statisticshttps://health.wyo.gov/publichealth/infectious-disease-epidemiology-unit/disease/novel-coronavirus/covid-19-map-and-statistics/ (2020).

    Not in our library

  99. 99.

    Sawyer CC. Child mortality estimation: estimating sex differences in childhood mortality since the 1970s. PLoS Med. 2012;9:e1001287.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pmed.1001287 (opens in a new tab)

  100. 100.

    Flanagan KL, Fink AL, Plebanski M, Klein SL. Sex and Gender Differences in the Outcomes of Vaccination over the Life Course. Annu Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 2017;33:577-599.

    Not in our library10.1146/annurev-cellbio-100616-060718 (opens in a new tab)

  101. 101.

    Klein SL, Flanagan KL. Sex differences in immune responses. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2016;16:626-638.

    Not in our library10.1038/nri.2016.90 (opens in a new tab)

  102. 102.

    Schroder J, Kahlke V, Staubach KH, Zabel P, Stuber F. Gender differences in human sepsis. Arch. Surg. 1998;133:1200-1205.

    Not in our library10.1001/archsurg.133.11.1200 (opens in a new tab)

  103. 103.

    Karlberg, J., Chong, D. S. Y. & Lai, W. Y. Y. Do Men Have a Higher Case Fatality Rate of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome than Women Do? Am. J. Epidemiol. 10.1093/aje/kwh056 (2004).

    Not in our library10.1093/aje/kwh056 (opens in a new tab)

  104. 104.

    Leong HN, et al. SARS in Singapore–predictors of disease severity. Ann. Acad. Med. Singap. 2006;35:326-331.

    Not in our library

  105. 105.

    Alghamdi IG, et al. The pattern of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus in Saudi Arabia: a descriptive epidemiological analysis of data from the Saudi Ministry of Health. Int J. Gen. Med. 2014;7:417-423.

    Not in our library10.2147/ijgm.s67061 (opens in a new tab)

  106. 106.

    Abdullah M, et al. Gender effect on in vitro lymphocyte subset levels of healthy individuals. Cell. Immunol. 2012;272:214-219.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cellimm.2011.10.009 (opens in a new tab)

  107. 107.

    Lee BW, et al. Age- and sex-related changes in lymphocyte subpopulations of healthy Asian subjects: from birth to adulthood. Cytometry. 1996;26:8-15.

    Not in our library10.1002/(sici)1097-0320(19960315)26:1<8::aid-cyto2>3.0.co;2-e (opens in a new tab)

  108. 108.

    Lisse IM, et al. T-lymphocyte subsets in West African children: impact of age, sex, and season. J. Pediatr. 1997;130:77-85.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0022-3476(97)70313-5 (opens in a new tab)

  109. 109.

    Delmas MC, et al. Gender difference in CD4+cell counts persist after HIV-1 infection. SEROCO Study Group. AIDS. 1997;11:1071-1073.

    Not in our library

  110. 110.

    Mori M, et al. Sex Differences in Antiretroviral Therapy Initiation in Pediatric HIV Infection. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0131591.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0131591 (opens in a new tab)

  111. 111.

    Ruel TD, et al. Sex differences in HIV RNA level and CD4 cell percentage during childhood. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2011;53:592-599.

    Not in our library10.1093/cid/cir484 (opens in a new tab)

  112. 112.

    Hewagama A, Patel D, Yarlagadda S, Strickland FM, Richardson BC. Stronger inflammatory/cytotoxic T-cell response in women identified by microarray analysis. Genes Immunity. 2009;10:509-516.

    Not in our library10.1038/gene.2009.12 (opens in a new tab)

  113. 113.

    Stoica G, Macarie E, Michiu V, Stoica RC. Biologic variation of human immunoglobulin concentration. I. Sex-age specific effects on serum levels of IgG, IgA, IgM and IgD. Med. Interne. 1980;18:323-332.

    Not in our library

  114. 114.

    Klein, S. L., Marriott, I. & Fish, E. N. Sex-based differences in immune function and responses to vaccination. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 10.1093/trstmh/tru167 (2014).

    Not in our library10.1093/trstmh/tru167 (opens in a new tab)

  115. 115.

    Engler RJ, et al. Half- vs full-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (2004-2005): age, dose, and sex effects on immune responses. Arch. Intern. Med. 2008;168:2405-2414.

    Not in our library10.1001/archinternmed.2008.513 (opens in a new tab)

  116. 116.

    Furman, D. et al. Systems analysis of sex differences reveals an immunosuppressive role for testosterone in the response to influenza vaccination. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 10.1073/pnas.1321060111 (2014).

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1321060111 (opens in a new tab)

  117. 117.

    Voigt, E. A. et al. Sex differences in older adults’ immune responses to seasonal influenza vaccination. Front. Immunol. 10, 180 (2019).

    Not in our library10.3389/fimmu.2019.00180 (opens in a new tab)

  118. 118.

    Berghöfer B, et al. TLR7 Ligands Induce Higher IFN-α Production in Females. J. Immunol. 2006;177:2088-2096.

    Not in our library10.4049/jimmunol.177.4.2088 (opens in a new tab)

  119. 119.

    Laffont S, et al. X-Chromosome Complement and Estrogen Receptor Signaling Independently Contribute to the Enhanced TLR7-Mediated IFN-α Production of Plasmacytoid Dendritic Cells from Women. J. Immunol. 2014;193:5444-5452.

    Not in our library10.4049/jimmunol.1303400 (opens in a new tab)

  120. 120.

    Seillet C, et al. The TLR-mediated response of plasmacytoid dendritic cells is positively regulated by estradiol in vivo through cell-intrinsic estrogen receptor α signaling. Blood. 2012;119:454-464.

    Not in our library10.1182/blood-2011-08-371831 (opens in a new tab)

  121. 121.
    Sex and Pubertal Differences in the Type 1 Interferon Pathway Associate With Both X Chromosome Number and Serum Sex Hormone Concentration · 2019
    No notice
  122. 122.

    Ziegler SM, Altfeld M. Human Immunodeficiency Virus 1 and Type I Interferons—Where Sex Makes a Difference. Front. Immunol. 2017;8:1224.

    Not in our library10.3389/fimmu.2017.01224 (opens in a new tab)

  123. 123.

    Ziegler SM, et al. Human pDCs display sex-specific differences in type I interferon subtypes and interferon alpha/beta receptor expression. Eur. J. Immunol. 2017;47:251-256.

    Not in our library10.1002/eji.201646725 (opens in a new tab)

  124. 124.

    Meier A, et al. Sex differences in the Toll-like receptor-mediated response of plasmacytoid dendritic cells to HIV-1. Nat. Med. 2009;15:955-959.

    Not in our library10.1038/nm.2004 (opens in a new tab)

  125. 125.

    Trouillet-Assant, S. et al. Type I IFN immunoprofiling in COVID-19 patients. Clin. Chem.10.1093/clinchem/hvaa089 (2020).

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jaci.2020.04.029 (opens in a new tab)

  126. 126.

    Spolarics Z, Pena G, Qin Y, Donnelly RJ, Livingston DH. Inherent X-Linked Genetic Variability and Cellular Mosaicism Unique to Females Contribute to Sex-Related Differences in the Innate Immune Response. Front Immunol. 2017;8:1455.

    Not in our library10.3389/fimmu.2017.01455 (opens in a new tab)

  127. 127.

    Bianchi I, Lleo A, Gershwin ME, Invernizzi P. The X chromosome and immune associated genes. J. Autoimmun. 2012;38:J187-J192.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jaut.2011.11.012 (opens in a new tab)

  128. 128.

    Qu K, et al. Individuality and variation of personal regulomes in primary human T cells. Cell Syst. 2015;1:51-61.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cels.2015.06.003 (opens in a new tab)

  129. 129.

    Wang, J. et al. Unusual maintenance of X chromosome inactivation predisposes female lymphocytes for increased expression from the inactive X. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci.10.1073/pnas.1520113113 (2016).

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1520113113 (opens in a new tab)

  130. 130.
    The Immune System Is a Natural Target for Estrogen Action: Opposing Effects of Estrogen in Two Prototypical Autoimmune Diseases · 2016
    No notice
  131. 131.

    Polanczyk MJ, et al. Cutting edge: estrogen drives expansion of the CD4+CD25+regulatory T cell compartment. J. Immunol. 2004;173:2227-2230.

    Not in our library10.4049/jimmunol.173.4.2227 (opens in a new tab)

  132. 132.
    Estrogen Deficiency Induces the Differentiation of IL-17 Secreting Th17 Cells: A New Candidate in the Pathogenesis of Osteoporosis · 2012
    No notice
  133. 133.

    Pauklin S, Sernandez IV, Bachmann G, Ramiro AR, Petersen-Mahrt SK. Estrogen directly activates AID transcription and function. J. Exp. Med. 2009;206:99-111.

    Not in our library10.1084/jem.20080521 (opens in a new tab)

  134. 134.

    Jilma B, et al. Effects of 17 beta-estradiol on circulating adhesion molecules. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2018;79:1619-1624.

    Not in our library10.1210/jcem.79.6.7527406 (opens in a new tab)

  135. 135.

    Bouman A, Heineman MJ, Faas MM. Sex hormones and the immune response in humans. Hum. Reprod. Updat. 2005;11:411-423.

    Not in our library10.1093/humupd/dmi008 (opens in a new tab)

  136. 136.

    Ding, T. et al. A Multi-hospital Study in Wuhan, China: Protective Effects of Non-menopause and Female Hormones on SARS-CoV-2 infection. medrxiv10.1101/2020.03.26.20043943 (2020).

    Not in our library

  137. 137.

    Jose RJ, Manuel A. COVID-19 cytokine storm: the interplay between inflammation and coagulation. Lancet Respiratory Med. 2020;8:e46-e47.

    Not in our library10.1016/s2213-2600(20)30216-2 (opens in a new tab)

  138. 138.

    Page ST, et al. Effect of medical castration on CD4+CD25+T cells, CD8+T cell IFN-γ expression, and NK cells: a physiological role for testosterone and/or its metabolites. Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 2006;290:E856-E863.

    Not in our library10.1152/ajpendo.00484.2005 (opens in a new tab)

  139. 139.
    Sex differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection rates and the potential link to prostate cancer · 2020
    No notice
  140. 140.
    Immunosenescence and Inflamm-Aging As Two Sides of the Same Coin: Friends or Foes? · 2018
    No notice
  141. 141.
    Sexual-dimorphism in human immune system aging · 2020
    No notice
  142. 142.
    The Confluence of Sex Hormones and Aging on Immunity · 2018
    No notice
  143. 143.

    Wan Y, Shang J, Graham R, Baric RS, Li F. Receptor Recognition by the Novel Coronavirus from Wuhan: an Analysis Based on Decade-Long Structural Studies of SARS Coronavirus. J. Virol. 2020;94:e00127-20.

    Not in our library10.1128/jvi.00127-20 (opens in a new tab)

  144. 144.

    Cai, G. Bulk and single-cell transcriptomics identify tobacco-use disparity in lung gene expression of ACE2, the receptor of 2019-nCov. medRxiv10.1101/2020.02.05.20020107 (2020).

    Not in our library

  145. 145.

    Zhao, Y. et al. Single-cell RNA expression profiling of ACE2, the putative receptor of Wuhan 2019-nCov. bioRxiv 2020.01.26.919985. biorxiv10.1101/2020.01.26.919985 (2020).

    Not in our library

  146. 146.

    Bukowska A, et al. Protective regulation of the ACE2/ACE gene expression by estrogen in human atrial tissue from elderly men. Exp. Biol. Med. 2017;242:1412-1423.

    Not in our library10.1177/1535370217718808 (opens in a new tab)

  147. 147.

    Culebras E, Hernández F. ACE2 is on the X chromosome: could this explain COVID-19 gender differences? Eur. heart J. 2020;41(32):3095-3095.

    Not in our library10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa521 (opens in a new tab)

  148. 148.

    Benjamin EJ, et al. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2017 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2017;135:e146-e603.

    Not in our library10.1161/cir.0000000000000485 (opens in a new tab)

  149. 149.

    Saeedi P, et al. Global and regional diabetes prevalence estimates for 2019 and projections for 2030 and 2045: Results from the International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas, 9th edn. Diabetes Res Clin. Pr. 2019;157:107843.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.diabres.2019.107843 (opens in a new tab)

  150. 150.

    Guan, W. et al. Comorbidity and its impact on 1590 patients with Covid-19 in China: A Nationwide Analysis. Eur. Respir. J. 2000547 (2020). Eur. Respir. J.10.1183/13993003.00547-2020 (2020).

    Not in our library10.1183/13993003.00547-2020 (opens in a new tab)

  151. 151.

    World Health Organization. Global Adult Tobacco Survey Fact Sheet. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/wpro-documents/countries/china/2018-gats-china-factsheet-cn-en.pdf?sfvrsn=3f4e2da9_2 (2018).

    Not in our library

  152. 152.

    Judah G, et al. Experimental pretesting of hand-washing interventions in a natural setting. Am. J. Public Health. 2009;99(Suppl 2):S405-S411.

    Not in our library10.2105/ajph.2009.164160 (opens in a new tab)

  153. 153.

    World Health Organization. Addressing Sex And Gender In Epidemic-prone Infectious Diseases. (World Health Organization, 2007).

    Not in our library

  154. 154.

    Regitz-Zagrosek V. Sex and gender differences in health. Science & Society Series on Sex and Science. EMBO Rep. 2012;13:596-603.

    Not in our library10.1038/embor.2012.87 (opens in a new tab)

  155. 155.

    Morgan R, Klein SL. The intersection of sex and gender in the treatment of influenza. Curr. Opin. Virol. 2019;35:35-41.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.coviro.2019.02.009 (opens in a new tab)

  156. 156.

    Bischof E, Oertelt-Prigione S, Morgan R, Klein S. Towards Precision Medicine: Inclusion of Sex and Gender Aspects in COVID-19 Clinical Studies—Acting Now before It Is Too Late—A Joint Call for Action. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020;17:3715.

    Not in our library10.3390/ijerph17103715 (opens in a new tab)

  157. 157.

    Worldometers.info. Worldometer. Dover, Delaware, U.S.A. (Worldometers.info, 2020).

    Not in our library

  158. 158.

    Balduzzi S, Rücker G, Schwarzer G. How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evid. Based Ment. Health. 2019;22:153-160.

    Not in our library10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117 (opens in a new tab)

Cited by papers we hold 20

Questions about this paper

We email you if it is retracted, withdrawn, corrected or flagged.

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.