4.0 Article

Association of maternal blood lead concentration with the risk of small for gestational age: A dose-response meta-analysis

Journal

ARCHIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Volume 77, Issue 4, Pages 293-300

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/19338244.2021.1874857

Keywords

Blood lead; dose-response meta-analysis; lead poisoning; small for gestational age

Funding

  1. Students' Scientific Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran [98-3-104-45236]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The meta-analysis found a significant association between maternal blood lead level and the risk of small for gestational age, especially when the BLL is higher than approximately 0.3 μg/dL. The linear dose-response analysis did not show a significant association, but a nonlinear relationship was observed.
In spite of growing evidence for the negative effect of lead, knowledge about the dose-response relationship of maternal blood lead level (BLL) and the risk of small for gestational age (SGA) is limited. We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the dose-response relation between maternal BLL and the risk of SGA. A systematic search through Embase and PubMed was performed. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated. The nonlinear and linear relationships between maternal BLL and the risk of SGA were also investigated. Results from 51,065 patients showed a significant association between maternal BLL and risk of SGA in highest versus lowest analysis (OR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.12-2.10, p = 0.007). While there was no association in linear dose-response (OR: 1.02; 95% CI: 1.00-1.04, p = 0.021) meta-analysis, a direct relationship was observed in the nonlinear model (nonlinearity p < 0.001). Results of this dose-response meta-analysis showed that maternal BLL higher than similar to 0.3 mu g/dL is directly associated with the risk of SGA.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available