Background: Myopia is a global public health problem affecting quality of life and work productivity. Data is scarce regarding the effects of near work on myopia. Providing a larger meta-analysis with life-long perspective, including adults and occupational exposure seemed needed. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Science Direct for studies reporting myopia prevalence in near work. Myopia was defined as a mean spherical equivalent ≤ −0.50 diopter. We performed a meta-analysis using random-effects model on myopia prevalence, myopia progression per year, and odds ratio (OR) of myopia in near work, completed by subgroup analyses and meta-regressions on patients’ characteristics, type of work in adults, geographic zones, time and characteristics of near work. Results: We included 78 studies, representing a total of 254,037 participants, aged from 6 to 39 years. The global prevalence of myopia in near work was 35% (95% CI: 30 to 41%), with a prevalence of 31% (95% CI: 26 to 37%) in children and 46% (95% CI: 30 to 62%) in adults. Myopia progression was −0.39 diopters per year (−0.53 to −0.24 D/year), ranging from −0.44 (−0.57 to −0.31) in children to −0.25 D/year (−0.56 to 0.06) in adults. The odds of myopia in workers exposed vs. non-exposed to near work were increased by 26% (18 to 34%), by 31% (21 to 42%) in children and 21% (6 to 35%) in adults. Prevalence of myopia was higher in adults compared to children (Coefficient 0.15, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.27). Conclusions: Near work conditions, including occupational exposure in adults, could be associated with myopia. Targeted prevention should be implemented in the workplace.

Sex and gender dimorphisms are found in a large variety of diseases, including sepsis and septic shock which are more prevalent in men than in women. Animal models show that the host response to pathogens differs in females and males. This difference is partially explained by sex polarization of the intracellular pathways responding to pathogen–cell receptor interactions. Sex hormones seem to be responsible for this polarization, although other factors, such as chromosomal effects, have yet to be investigated. In brief, females are less susceptible to sepsis and seem to recover more effectively than males. Clinical observations produce more nuanced findings, but men consistently have a higher incidence of sepsis, and some reports also claim higher mortality rates. However, variables other than hormonal differences complicate the interaction between sex and sepsis, including comorbidities as well as social and cultural differences between men and women. Conflicting data have also been reported regarding sepsis-attributable mortality rates among pregnant women, compared with non-pregnant females. We believe that unraveling sex differences in the host response to sepsis and its treatment could be the first step in personalized, phenotype-based management of patients with sepsis and septic shock.

Epidemiological differences between men and women have been reported with regards to sepsis, influenza and severe coronavirus infections including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. To systematically review the literature relating to men versus women on SARS-CoV-2 in order to seek differences in disease characteristics (e.g. infectivity, severity) and outcomes (e.g. mortality). We searched 3 electronic databases up or observational studies reporting differences between men and women in the SARS-CoV-2 disease characteristics stated. We identified and included 47 studies, reporting data for 21,454 patients mainly from China. The unadjusted mortality rates of men were higher than those of women, with a mortality OR 0.51 [0.42, 0.61] (p<0.001) for women. The proportion of men presenting with severe disease and admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) was also higher than that of women (OR 0.75 [0.60–0.93] p<0.001 and OR 0.45 [0.40–0.52] p<0.001 respectively). Adjusted analyses could not be conducted due to lack of data. COVID-19 may be associated with worse outcomes in males than in females. However, until more detailed data are provided in further studies enabling adjusted analysis, this remains an unproven assumption.

Infective endocarditis is one of the most difficult-to-diagnose, and difficult-to-treat, infectious diseases, with in-hospital mortality rates plateauing at 20% in contemporary cohorts. We restrict...

The literature is unresolved on whether female receive advanced cardiac life support less than do male and on whether female have a survival advantage over male after cardiopulmonary resuscitation. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science databases (from inception to 23-April-2022) for papers reporting outcomes in adult male and female after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The main study outcome was the rate of adjusted survival to hospital discharge or 30 days. Secondary outcomes included unadjusted survival to hospital discharge and favourable neurological outcome. A total of 28 studies were included, involving 1,931,123 patients. Female were older than male, their cardiac arrests were less likely to be witnessed and less likely to present with a shockable rhythm. Unadjusted analysis showed that females had a lower likelihood of survival than males (OR 0.68 [0.62–0.74], I2 = 97%). After adjustment, no significant difference was identified between male and female in survival at hospital discharge/30 days (OR 1.01 [0.93–1.11], I2 = 87%). Data showed that male had a significantly higher likelihood of favorable neurological outcome in unadjusted analysis but this trend disappeared after adjustment. Both the primary outcome (adjusted for several variables) and the secondary outcomes were associated with substantial heterogeneity. The variables examined using meta-regression, subgroup and sensitivity analyses (i.e., study type, location, years, population, quality of adjustment, risk of bias) did not reduce heterogeneity. The adjusted rate of survival to hospital discharge/30 days was similar for male and female despite an initial seeming survival advantage for male. The validity of this finding is limited by substantial heterogeneity despite in-depth investigation of its causes, which raises concerns regarding latent inequalities in some reports nonetheless. Further study on this topic may require inclusion of factors not reported in the Utstein template and in-depth analysis of decision-making processes.