@article {Jim{\'e}nez-S{\'a}nchez2021.03.04.21252853, author = {Lorena Jim{\'e}nez-S{\'a}nchez and Olivia K. L. Hamilton and Una Clancy and Ellen V. Backhouse and Catriona R. Stewart and Michael S. Stringer and Fergus N. Doubal and Joanna M. Wardlaw}, title = {Sex differences in Cerebral Small Vessel Disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis}, elocation-id = {2021.03.04.21252853}, year = {2021}, doi = {10.1101/2021.03.04.21252853}, publisher = {Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press}, abstract = {Background Cerebral small vessel disease (SVD) is an important cause of acute ischemic stroke and vascular dementia. Several studies recruiting more males than females have reported sex differences regarding SVD incidence and severity, but it is unclear whether this reflects underlying sex-specific mechanisms or recruitment bias. This work aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze potential sex differences in SVD by assessing the male-to-female ratio (M:F) of recruited participants and incidence of SVD, risk factor presence, distribution and severity of SVD features.Methods Full text of 228 studies from four databases of recent systematic reviews on SVD and an independent search of MEDLINE were evaluated against inclusion and exclusion criteria (registered protocol: CRD42020193995). Data from participants with clinical or non-clinical presentations of SVD with radiological evidence of SVD were extracted. Sex ratios of total participants or SVD groups were calculated and differences in sex ratios across time, countries, SVD severity and risk factors for SVD were explored.Results Amongst 123 relevant studies (n = 36,910 participants) including 53 community-based, 67 hospital-based and 3 mixed studies, more males were recruited in hospital-based than in community-based studies (M:F = 1.16 (0.70) vs M:F = 0.79 (0.35), respectively; p \<0.001). More males had moderate to severe SVD (M:F = 1.08 (0.81) vs M:F = 0.82 (0.47) in healthy to mild SVD; p \<0.001), especially in stroke presentations where M:F was 1.67 (0.53). M:F of recent research (2015-2020) did not differ from that published pre-2015 and no geographical trends were apparent. There were insufficient sex-stratified data to explore M:F and risk factors for SVD.Conclusions Our results highlight differences in male-to-female ratios in SVD that may reflect sex-specific variability in risk factor exposures, study participation, clinical recognition, genuine SVD severity, or clinical presentation and have important clinical and translational implications.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Protocols https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=193995\&VersionID=1392786 Funding StatementL.J.S. is a Translational Neuroscience PhD student funded by Wellcome (108890/Z/15/Z). O.K.L.H. is a Translational Neuroscience PhD student funded by the College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine at the University of Edinburgh. U.C. is funded by a Chief Scientist Office of Scotland Clinical Academic Fellowship (CAF/18/08) and Stroke Association Princess Margaret Research Development Fellowship (2018). E.V.B. is funded by the Sackler Foundation, the Stroke Association, British Heart Foundation and Alzheimer{\textquoteright}s Society through the R4VaD Study. M.S.S. is funded by the Fondation Leducq (ref no. 16 CVD 05) and EU Horizon2020 (PHC-03-15, project No 666881, SVDs@Target) and the MRC UK Dementia Research Institute at the University of Edinburgh (UK DRI LTD, funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Alzheimer{\textquoteright}s Society and Alzheimer{\textquoteright}s Research UK). F.N.D. is funded by a Stroke Association Garfield Weston Foundation (TSALECT 2015/04) Senior Clinical Lectureship and NHS Research Scotland. J.M.W. is funded by the Stroke Association, British Hearth Foundation, Row Fogo Charitable Trust, Fondation Leducq (Perivascular Spaces Transatlantic Network of Excellence), and EU Horizon 2020 (SVDs@Target) and the MRC UK Dementia Research Institute at the University of Edinburgh. All authors hold grants from government/charitable agencies. The funding sources had no role in the study design, execution, analysis, interpretation of the data, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This work reviews findings from previously published studies. Thus, no additional ethics committee approvals were required.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAny data not published within the article can be shared by request from any qualified investigator.CADASILcerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathyCMBscerebral microbleedsMRImagnetic resonance imagingICHintracerebral hemorrhageSVDcerebral small vessel diseaseVaDvascular dementiaVaCIvascular cognitive impairmentWMHwhite matter hyperintensities}, URL = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/08/2021.03.04.21252853}, eprint = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/08/2021.03.04.21252853.full.pdf}, journal = {medRxiv} }