4.5 Review

Selenium and Preeclampsia: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Journal

BIOLOGICAL TRACE ELEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 171, Issue 2, Pages 283-292

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1007/s12011-015-0545-7

Keywords

Selenium; Preeclampsia; Systematic review and meta-analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Conflicting results exist between selenium concentration and preeclampsia. The role of selenium in the development of preeclampsia is unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the blood selenium level in patients with preeclampsia and healthy pregnant women, and to determine the effectiveness of selenium supplementation in preventing preeclampsia. We searched PubMed, ScienceDirect, the Cochrane Library, and relevant references for English language literature up to November 25, 2014. Mean difference from observational studies and relative risk from randomized controlled trials were meta-analyzed by a random-effect model. Thirteen observational studies with 1515 participants and 3 randomized controlled trials with 439 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Using a random-effect model, a statistically significant difference in blood selenium concentration of -6.47 mu g/l (95 % confidence interval (CI) -11.24 to -1.7, p = 0.008) was seen after comparing the mean difference of observational studies. In randomized controlled trials, using a random-effect model, the relative risk for preeclampsia was 0.28 (0.09 to 0.84) for selenium supplementation (p = 0.02). Evidence from observational studies indicates an inverse association of blood selenium level and the risk of preeclampsia. Supplementation with selenium significantly reduces the incidence of preeclampsia. However, more prospective clinical trials are required to assess the association between selenium supplementation and preeclampsia and to determine the dose, beginning time, and duration of selenium supplementation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available