4.6 Review

Circulating Betatrophin Levels and Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169941

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81301608, 81401633]
  2. Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China [LY14H150005]
  3. Zhejiang Provincial Medical Technology Foundation of China [2014KYA171]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective The association between circulating betatrophin levels and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is controversial. The aim of our study was to systematically review available literature linking betatrophin to GDM for a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between circulating betatrophin levels and GDM in human. Methods PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Medline and CNKI were searched for studies published up to August 2016. Manual searches of references of the relevant original studies were conducted. Pooled estimates were measured using the fixed or random effect model. Overall effect was reported in a standard mean difference (SMD). All data were analyzed with Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 12.0. Results Of 25 references reviewed, 8 studies met our inclusion criteria and contributed to meta-analysis. All the studies were used to evaluate the relationship between betatrophin levels in blood and GDM. Betatrophin levels were significantly elevated in women with GDM compared with those without GDM (SMD = 1.05; 95% CI: 0.41-1.68, P = 0.001). This evidence was more consistent among women with betatrophin blood draw during the third trimester (SMD = 1.3, 95% CI: 1-1.61, P < 0.001) and for women BMI >= 28 kg/m(2) (SMD = 1.53, 95% CI: 1.30-1.75, P < 0.001). Conclusions The evidences from this meta-analysis indicated that the levels of circulating betatrophin were significantly elevated among women with GDM compared with women with normal glucose tolerance, especially with BMI >= 28 kg/m(2) and in the third trimester.

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