4.6 Article

Chorioamnionitis as a Risk Factor for Necrotizing Enterocolitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 162, 期 2, 页码 236-+

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2012.07.012

关键词

-

资金

  1. Maastricht University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To accumulate available evidence regarding the association between antenatal inflammation and necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). Study design A systematic literature search was performed using Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Knowledge, and reference hand searches. Human studies published in English that reported associations between chorioamnionitis or other indicators of antenatal inflammation and NEC were eligible. Relevant associations were extracted and reported. Studies reporting associations between histological chorioamnionitis (HC) and NEC, HC with fetal involvement and NEC, and clinical chorioamnionitis and NEC were pooled in separate meta-analyses. Results A total of 33 relevant studies were identified. Clinical chorioamnionitis was significantly associated with NEC (12 studies; n = 22 601; OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.01-1.52; P = .04; I-2 = 12%), but the association between HC and NEC was not statistically significant (13 studies; n = 5889; OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.95-2.04; P = .09; I-2 = 49%). However, HC with fetal involvement was highly associated with NEC (3 studies; n = 1640; OR, 3.29; 95% CI, 1.87-5.78; P <= .0001; I-2 = 10%). Selection based on study quality did not affect the results. No indications of publication bias were apparent. Multivariate analyses in single studies generally attenuated the reported associations. Several associations between other markers of antenatal inflammation and NEC are reported. Conclusion Currently available evidence supports a role for antenatal inflammation in NEC pathophysiology. This finding emphasizes the need to further study the underlying mechanisms and evaluate potential interventions to improve postnatal intestinal outcomes. (J Pediatr 2013;162:236-42).

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

4.6
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