ObjectiveWe aimed to describe the associations of age and sex with the risk of COVID-19 in different severity stages ranging from infection to death.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed and Embase through 4 May 2020.Study selectionWe considered cohort and case–control studies that evaluated differences in age and sex on the risk of COVID-19 infection, disease severity, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death.Data extraction and synthesisWe screened and included studies using standardised electronic data extraction forms and we pooled data from published studies and data acquired by contacting authors using random effects meta-analysis. We assessed the risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.ResultsWe screened 11.550 titles and included 59 studies comprising 36.470 patients in the analyses. The methodological quality of the included papers was high (8.2 out of 9). Men had a higher risk for infection with COVID-19 than women (relative risk (RR) 1.08, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.12). When infected, they also had a higher risk for severe COVID-19 disease (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.27), a higher need for intensive care (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.74) and a higher risk of death (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.91). The analyses also showed that patients aged 70 years and above have a higher infection risk (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.50 to 1.81), a higher risk for severe COVID-19 disease (RR 2.05, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.32), a higher need for intensive care (RR 2.70, 95% CI 1.59 to 4.60) and a higher risk of death once infected (RR 3.61, 95% CI 2.70 to 4.84) compared with patients younger than 70 years.ConclusionsMeta-analyses on 59 studies comprising 36.470 patients showed that men and patients aged 70 and above have a higher risk for COVID-19 infection, severe disease, ICU admission and death.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020180085.

Background: To date, it is unclear if consumer wearable activity trackers (CWATs), with or without behaviour multicomponent strategies, effectively improve adherence to physical activity and health outcomes under free living conditions in populations with chronic diseases. Therefore, we systematically evaluated the efficacy of CWAT-based interventions to promote physical activity levels and cardiometabolic health in populations with chronic diseases. Methods: Randomised controlled trials were collected from five bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and CINAHL). Studies were eligible for inclusion if they evaluated a CWAT-based counselling intervention versus control intervention among patients with chronic respiratory diseases, type 2 diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular diseases, overweight/obesity, cognitive disorders, or sedentary older adults. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Results: After deduplication 8147 were identified of which 35 studies met inclusion criteria (chronic respiratory diseases: 7, type 2 diabetes mellitus: 12, cardiovascular diseases: 6, overweight/obesity: 3, cognitive disorders: 1, sedentary older adults: 6). Compared to control groups, CWAT-based interventions significantly increased physical activity by 2123 steps per day (95% confidence interval [CI], [1605-2641]; p < 0.001). In addition, CWAT-based interventions in these populations significantly decreased systolic blood pressure (− 3.79 mm Hg; 95% CI: [− 4.53, − 3.04] mm Hg; p < 0.001), waist circumference (− 0.99 cm; 95% CI: [− 1.48, − 0.50] cm; p < 0.001) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration (− 5.70 mg/dl; 95% CI: [− 9.24, − 2.15] mg/dl; p = 0.002).

Background: This review aims to investigate the association of sex with the risk of multiple COVID-19 health outcomes, ranging from infection to death. Methods: Pubmed and Embase were searched through September 2020. We considered studies reporting sex and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes. Qualitative and quantitative data were extracted using standardised electronic data extraction forms with the assessment of Newcastle Ottawa Scale for risk of bias. Pooled trends in infection, hospitalization, severity, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death rate were calculated separately for men and women and subsequently random-effects meta-analyses on relative risks (RR) for sex was performed. Results: Of 10,160 titles, 229 studies comprising 10,417,452 patients were included in the analyses. Methodological quality of the included studies was high (6.9 out of 9). Men had a higher risk for infection with COVID-19 than women (RR = 1.14, 95%CI: 1.07 to 1.21). When infected, they also had a higher risk for hospitalization (RR = 1.33, 95%CI: 1.27 to 1.41), higher risk for severe COVID-19 (RR = 1.22, 95%CI: 1.17 to 1.27), higher need for Intensive Care (RR = 1.41, 95%CI: 1.28 to 1.55), and higher risk of death (RR = 1.35, 95%CI: 1.28 to 1.43). Within the period studied, the RR for infection and severity increased for men compared to women, while the RR for mortality decreased for men compared to women. Conclusions: Meta-analyses on 229 studies comprising over 10 million patients showed that men have a higher risk for COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, disease severity, ICU admission and death. The relative risks of infection, disease severity and death for men versus women showed temporal trends with lower relative risks for infection and severity of disease and higher relative risk for death at the beginning of the pandemic compared to the end of our inclusion period. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020180085 (20/04/2020)

BackgroundThe Emergency Medical Services (EMS) have been developed in the Arabian Gulf States (AGS) in the last three decades. The EMS needs continuous quality assessment of their performance to improve and provide the best out-of-hospital care. This study aims to assess the quality of EMS in the AGS according to the six quality domains of the Institute of Medicine.MethodsWe searched four databases (i.e., PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL) for studies that reported on the quality of EMS in any of the AGS using clinical or non-clinical performance indicators. To quantify study quality and risk of bias, the adapted Newcastle Ottawa Scale was used. We focused on structural and functional indicators, clinical and non-clinical.ResultsTwenty-five studies were eligible for inclusion. One study contained result of safety, fifteen time-centeredness, twenty effectiveness, five patient-centeredness, and thirteen studies reported on equity of EMS. None of the studies reported on efficiency of EMS. A significant proportion of studies showed high scores on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Limited studies on EMS quality were available, not covering all relevant quality domains and not covering the whole AGS region. The equity domain showed the best outcome performance finding, whereas finding of the patient-centeredness domain showed room for improvement in the foreseeable future.ConclusionThis review highlights the need for more and better studies of sufficient quality about all domains of quality in EMS in all the AGS. EMS research in Kuwait and Bahrain is warranted, as currently studies of EMS quality are unavailable for these States. Moreover, efficiency researches exploring this discipline should be conducted specially no studies were found has been searching this domain.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration number: CRD42019123896.