Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35930534›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

London parochial burial records from 1563 to 1665 indicate higher plague death rates for males than females: Some possible demographic and social explanations.

Xavier Didelot, Charles Morris Evans

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Xavier DidelotSchool of Life Sciences and Department of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1885-500X
Charles Morris EvansDepartment of History, School of History & Cultures, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9743-5075

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The burial rates of males and females in early modern central London were compared to investigate a possible bias towards male mortality in the plague years of 1563, 1593, 1603, 1625 and 1665. The burial records of sixteen parishes were examined and compared with the five-year periods immediately preceding each plague year when recorded burials were substantially less. A markedly higher burial rate for males was detected in each plague year but this can be partly attributed to a general preponderance of males in the central London population since there was a similar but lesser bias in non-plague years. In the plague years the difference between the frequency of male and female adult burials appears to have been enhanced by the preferential migration of women of childbearing age out of the city since fewer births were recorded in months when plague was rife. Furthermore, when a sample of households was investigated, husbands were significantly more likely to have been buried than their wives. These findings were largely applicable to the plague years of 1603, 1625 and 1665 but were far less apparent in 1563 and 1593. In general, there were more burials of boys than girls in non-plague years which is the expected consequence of their greater vulnerability to childhood diseases. This difference diminished in plague years so that the burials of girls and boys approached parity at a time when burials of children of both sexes were significantly increased. Possibly, plague did not discriminate between the sexes and this characteristic tended to mask the usual vulnerability of boys.

Indexed as

BurialSpousesAdultChildFamily CharacteristicsFemaleHumansLondonMale

Identifiers

PMID35930534
PMCPMC9355180

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.