Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30402251›Full record

ReviewNew microbes and new infections2018

Sex and bacterial infectious diseases.

J-L Mege, F Bretelle, M Leone

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in New microbes and new infections, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

J-L MegeAix-Marseille Université, IRD, APHM, MEPHI, IHU-Méditerranée Infection, Marseille, France.
F BretelleAix-Marseille Université, IRD, APHM, MEPHI, IHU-Méditerranée Infection, Marseille, France.
M LeoneAix-Marseille Université, IRD, APHM, MEPHI, IHU-Méditerranée Infection, Marseille, France.
Aix-Marseille Université · FRMéditerranée Infection Foundation · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most infectious diseases are unequally distributed between male and female subjects. This sex dimorphism is confirmed by epidemiologic studies which suggest an increased number of male septic patients, while, due to the class age of septic patients, an overrepresentation of female patients would be expected. Lifestyle, recreational activities, professional exposition and access to care are plausible reasons for this dimorphism. However, biological differences should be carefully considered, particularly the weight of X-linked variability and the role of sex hormones. Animal models clearly show that clinical response to infection is more exuberant in males than in females. This is partly explained by an attenuation of the inflammatory response by female sex hormones. However, the translation from experimental studies to the bedside remains challenging as a result of confounding factors like age, hormone changes and response to treatment.

Indexed as

Bacteriaestradiolgenderinfectionsex

Identifiers

PMID30402251
PMCPMC6205577
OpenAlexW2806942227

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.