BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2023
Persistent organic pollutant exposure as a risk factor of gestational diabetes mellitus: 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.
Kouiti Malak, Castillo-Hermoso María Ángeles, Youlyouz-Marfak Ibtissam, Khan Khalid Saeed, Thangaratinam Shakila, Olmedo-Requena Rocío, Zamora Javier, Jiménez-Moléon José Juan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Findings related to the association between persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are inconclusive.
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the strength of the association between POP exposure and GDM in a systematic review with meta-analysis.
SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science were searched until July 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Cohort and case-control studies analysing the association between POPs and GDM.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed the risk of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies scale (QUIPS). Standardised mean differences were pooled using random-effect models.
MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen articles including 12 216 participants were selected. The risk of bias was high in four articles (25%), moderate in 11 (68.75%) and low in one (6.25%). Small mean difference between GDM cases and controls was observed for PFHpA (0.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.1-0.35, I2 = 0.0%), PCB180 (0.37, 95% CI 0.19-0.56; I2 = 25.3%), BDE47 (0.23, 95% CI 0.0-0.45, I2 = 0%), BDE99 (0.36, 95% CI 0.14-0.59; I2 = 0%), BDE100 (0.42, 95% CI 0.19-0.64; I2 = 0%) and HCB (0.22, 95% CI 0.01-0.42, I2 = 39.6%). No considerable difference was observed for the rest of POPs.
CONCLUSION: Small mean differences between GDM cases and controls were observed for some POPs. However, evidence shows mostly moderate quality and results were heterogeneous. Improved research methodology is needed to assess POPs and GDM risk.
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the strength of the association between POP exposure and GDM in a systematic review with meta-analysis.
SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science were searched until July 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Cohort and case-control studies analysing the association between POPs and GDM.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed the risk of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies scale (QUIPS). Standardised mean differences were pooled using random-effect models.
MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen articles including 12 216 participants were selected. The risk of bias was high in four articles (25%), moderate in 11 (68.75%) and low in one (6.25%). Small mean difference between GDM cases and controls was observed for PFHpA (0.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.1-0.35, I2 = 0.0%), PCB180 (0.37, 95% CI 0.19-0.56; I2 = 25.3%), BDE47 (0.23, 95% CI 0.0-0.45, I2 = 0%), BDE99 (0.36, 95% CI 0.14-0.59; I2 = 0%), BDE100 (0.42, 95% CI 0.19-0.64; I2 = 0%) and HCB (0.22, 95% CI 0.01-0.42, I2 = 39.6%). No considerable difference was observed for the rest of POPs.
CONCLUSION: Small mean differences between GDM cases and controls were observed for some POPs. However, evidence shows mostly moderate quality and results were heterogeneous. Improved research methodology is needed to assess POPs and GDM risk.