4.8 Article

Early life adversity and telomere length: a meta-analysis

期刊

MOLECULAR PSYCHIATRY
卷 23, 期 4, 页码 858-871

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/mp.2017.26

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Early adversity, in the form of abuse, neglect, socioeconomic status and other adverse experiences, is associated with poor physical and mental health outcomes. To understand the biologic mechanisms underlying these associations, studies have evaluated the relationship between early adversity and telomere length, a marker of cellular senescence. Such results have varied in regard to the size and significance of this relationship. Using meta-analytic techniques, we aimed to clarify the relationship between early adversity and telomere length while exploring factors affecting the association, including adversity type, timing and study design. A comprehensive search in July 2016 of PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science identified 2462 studies. Multiple reviewers appraised studies for inclusion or exclusion using a priori criteria; 3.9% met inclusion criteria. Data were extracted into a structured form; the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale assessed study quality, validity and bias. Forty-one studies (N = 30 773) met inclusion criteria. Early adversity and telomere length were significantly associated (Cohen's d effect size = -0.35; 95% CI, -0.46 to -0.24; P < 0.0001). Sensitivity analyses revealed no outlier effects. Adversity type and timing significantly impacted the association with telomere length (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.0025, respectively). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses revealed that medication use, medical or psychiatric conditions, case-control vs longitudinal study design, methodological factors, age and smoking significantly affected the relationship. Comprehensive evaluations of adversity demonstrated more extensive telomere length changes. These results suggest that early adversity may have long-lasting physiological consequences contributing to disease risk and biological aging.

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

4.8
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