4.5 Review

Childhood body mass index and wheezing disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

PEDIATRIC ALLERGY AND IMMUNOLOGY
卷 26, 期 1, 页码 62-72

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/pai.12321

关键词

ASTHMA; Wheezing disorders: obesity; overweight; BMI: meta-analysis; systematic literature review

资金

  1. Hall Dorman Research PhD Studentship
  2. Medical Research Council [MR/L01629X/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. MRC [MR/L01629X/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundIt has been claimed that overweight/obesity, childhood asthma and wheezing disorders are associated, although the results of observational studies have remained inconsistent. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate this. MethodsAn online search of published papers linking childhood asthma and wheezing with overweight/obesity up to May 2014 using EMBASE and MEDLINE medical research databases was carried out. Summary odds ratios (OR) were estimated using random-effects models. Subgroup meta-analyses were performed to assess the robustness of risk associations and between-study heterogeneity. ResultsA total of 38 studies comprising 1,411,335 participants were included in our meta-analysis. The summary ORs of underweight (<5th percentile), overweight (>85th to <95th percentile) and obesity (95th percentile) were 0.85 (95% CI: 0.75 to 0.97; p=0.02), 1.23 (95% CI: 1.17 to 1.29; p<0.001) and 1.46 (95% CI: 1.36 to 1.57, p<0.001), respectively. Heterogeneity was significant and substantial in all three weight categories, and not accounted for by pre-defined study characteristics. ConclusionOur results suggest that underweight is associated with a reduced risk of childhood asthma, and overweight and obesity are associated with an increased risk of childhood asthma. Although our findings assert that overweight/obesity and childhood asthma are associated, the causal pathway and temporal aspects of this relationship remain unanswered and deserve further epidemiological investigation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据