28 research outputs found
COVID-19 symptoms at hospital admission vary with age and sex: results from the ISARIC prospective multinational observational study
Background:
The ISARIC prospective multinational observational study is the largest cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We present relationships of age, sex, and nationality to presenting symptoms.
Methods:
International, prospective observational study of 60â109 hospitalized symptomatic patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 recruited from 43 countries between 30 January and 3 August 2020. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate relationships of age and sex to published COVID-19 case definitions and the most commonly reported symptoms.
Results:
âTypicalâ symptoms of fever (69%), cough (68%) and shortness of breath (66%) were the most commonly reported. 92% of patients experienced at least one of these. Prevalence of typical symptoms was greatest in 30- to 60-year-olds (respectively 80, 79, 69%; at least one 95%). They were reported less frequently in children (â€â18 years: 69, 48, 23; 85%), older adults (â„â70 years: 61, 62, 65; 90%), and women (66, 66, 64; 90%; vs. men 71, 70, 67; 93%, each Pâ<â0.001). The most common atypical presentations under 60 years of age were nausea and vomiting and abdominal pain, and over 60 years was confusion. Regression models showed significant differences in symptoms with sex, age and country.
Interpretation:
This international collaboration has allowed us to report reliable symptom data from the largest cohort of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Adults over 60 and children admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are less likely to present with typical symptoms. Nausea and vomiting are common atypical presentations under 30 years. Confusion is a frequent atypical presentation of COVID-19 in adults over 60 years. Women are less likely to experience typical symptoms than men
A protocol for the 0.9% saline versus Plasma-Lyte 148 for intensive care fluid therapy (SPLIT) study
Women on boards and corporate social irresponsibility: Evidence from a Granger style reverse causality minimisation procedure
We study the relationship between gender diversity on boards and corporate social irresponsibility (CSI). We hypothesize a bi-directional causality. Firms exposed to CSI incidents are likely to increase their board gender diversity for reputational purposes. At the same time, board gender diversity diversifies board skills and networks, thereby building board capital and enhancing its monitoring function which in turn should result in the ability to reduce CSI incidents. In econometric terms, this relationship is plagued with a reverse causality issue. To address this, we propose a Granger-style reverse causality minimisation procedure. This procedure involves three steps. Firstly, we regress board diversity (BD) on lagged CSI to separate diversity into two components, one driven by CSI (BDDCS) and another unrelated to CSI (BDUCS), with the latter being the sum of the intercept and the disturbance term. Secondly, we confirm that BDUCS experiences a near-zero correlation to CSI (0.01 compared to 0.26 for BD and CSI), and that a Granger causality F-test for CSI affecting BDUCS is clearly insignificant. Thirdly, we regress CSI on lagged BDUCS, lagged CSI and its interaction term. Applying our Granger-style reverse causality minimisation procedure to 2,880 U.S. firms between 2007 and 2016, we find CSI to increase board diversity. Potentially more importantly, we also find that boards with higher diversity, for reasons other than CSI, were significantly better than their lower diversity counterparts in reducing CSI incidents once encountering them. This effect is economically stronger for diversity unrelated to CSI than for overall diversity