4.3 Review

Premature birth, low birth weight, small for gestational age and chronic non-communicable diseases in adult life: A systematic review with meta-analysis

期刊

EARLY HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
卷 149, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105154

关键词

Premature birth; Low birth weight; Metabolic syndrome; Adult

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Individuals who were born prematurely (PT), with low birth weight (LBW), or small for gestational age (SGA) appear to present a set of permanent changes that make them more susceptible to develop chronic non-communicable diseases (CNCD) in adult life. Aim: Investigating the association between PT birth, LBW or SGA at birth and CNCD incidence in adult life. Methods: Systematic review with meta-analysis of studies available in three databases - two of them are official (PubMed and Web of Science) and one is gray literature (OpenGrey) - based on pre-established search and eligibility criteria. Results: Sixty-four studies were included in the review, 93.7% of them only investigated one of the exposure variables (46.7% LBW, 35.0% PT and 18.3% SGA at birth), whereas 6.3% investigated more than one exposure variable (50.0% LBW and PT; 50.0% SGA and PT). There was association among all exposure variables in the following outcomes: cardiometabolic (CMD) and glycidic metabolism (GMD) disorders, changes in body composition and risk of developing metabolic syndrome (MS). Female sex was identified as risk factor in the exposure-outcome association. Eighteen (18) articles were included in the meta-analysis. There was positive association between LBW and incidence of CMD (OR: 1.25 [95%CI: 1.11; 1.41]; 07 studies), GMD (OR: 1.70 [95%CI: 1.25; 2.30]; 03 studies) and MS (OR: 1.75 [95%CI: 1.27; 2.40]; 02 studies) in adult life. PT was positively associated with CMD (OR: 1.38 [95%CI: 1.27; 1.51]; 05 studies). Conclusions: LBW and PT are associated with CMD and GMD development, as well as with the risk of developing MS in adult life.

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

4.3
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