Obstetrics and gynecology · 2023
Prenatal Exposure to Cannabis and Risk of Major Structural Birth Defects: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Delker Erin, Hayes Shana, Kelly Ann E, Jones Kenneth L, Chambers Christina, Bandoli Gretchen
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To review and perform a meta-analysis of observational studies that examined associations between prenatal cannabis exposure and major structural birth defects.
DATA SOURCES: Information sources included Google Scholar, BIOSIS, PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Study titles and abstracts were reviewed with Abstrackr software. We included observational studies that examined the risk of major structural birth defects in people who used cannabis during pregnancy compared with those who had not used cannabis. We excluded case reports, ecologic studies, conference abstracts, manuscript preprints, studies designed to examine effects of cannabis used concurrently with other drugs, and studies that included synthetic cannabinoids. This process yielded 23 studies that analyzed data from birth years 1968-2021.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: We clustered and meta-analyzed measures of association for birth defects by anatomic group. Eleven articles reported an association between cannabis use and the risk of a nonspecific outcome (eg, congenital anomaly). We estimated a pooled odds ratio of 1.33 (95% CI 1.14-1.56) and a pooled adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 1.22 (95% CI 1.00-1.50). Anatomic groups examined were cardiac (nine studies), oral cleft (three studies), digestive (four studies), genitourinary (three studies), musculoskeletal (seven studies), and nervous system (five studies). Across most outcomes, we reported positive pooled unadjusted associations that were usually attenuated after the inclusion of only adjusted estimates. Two specific anomalies, with limited data, had pooled effect estimates that did not attenuate to the null after adjustment: Ebstein anomaly (two studies, aOR 2.19, 95% CI 1.25-3.82) and gastroschisis (five studies, aOR 2.50, 95% CI 1.09-5.740).
CONCLUSION: Studies examining associations between prenatal exposure to cannabis and major structural birth defects were heterogeneous. Most published effect estimates were unadjusted and scored low on our risk-of-bias assessment. Overall, we found inconsistent evidence to suggest that prenatal cannabis exposure is associated with birth defects. However, findings related to specific anomalies should be considered in further research.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42022319041.
DATA SOURCES: Information sources included Google Scholar, BIOSIS, PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Study titles and abstracts were reviewed with Abstrackr software. We included observational studies that examined the risk of major structural birth defects in people who used cannabis during pregnancy compared with those who had not used cannabis. We excluded case reports, ecologic studies, conference abstracts, manuscript preprints, studies designed to examine effects of cannabis used concurrently with other drugs, and studies that included synthetic cannabinoids. This process yielded 23 studies that analyzed data from birth years 1968-2021.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: We clustered and meta-analyzed measures of association for birth defects by anatomic group. Eleven articles reported an association between cannabis use and the risk of a nonspecific outcome (eg, congenital anomaly). We estimated a pooled odds ratio of 1.33 (95% CI 1.14-1.56) and a pooled adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 1.22 (95% CI 1.00-1.50). Anatomic groups examined were cardiac (nine studies), oral cleft (three studies), digestive (four studies), genitourinary (three studies), musculoskeletal (seven studies), and nervous system (five studies). Across most outcomes, we reported positive pooled unadjusted associations that were usually attenuated after the inclusion of only adjusted estimates. Two specific anomalies, with limited data, had pooled effect estimates that did not attenuate to the null after adjustment: Ebstein anomaly (two studies, aOR 2.19, 95% CI 1.25-3.82) and gastroschisis (five studies, aOR 2.50, 95% CI 1.09-5.740).
CONCLUSION: Studies examining associations between prenatal exposure to cannabis and major structural birth defects were heterogeneous. Most published effect estimates were unadjusted and scored low on our risk-of-bias assessment. Overall, we found inconsistent evidence to suggest that prenatal cannabis exposure is associated with birth defects. However, findings related to specific anomalies should be considered in further research.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42022319041.