4.6 Article

Birth Weight, Physical Morbidity, and Mortality: A Population-based Sibling-Comparison Study

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 179, 期 5, 页码 550-558

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwt304

关键词

birth weight; cardiovascular diseases; diabetes mellitus; fetal development; stroke

资金

  1. US National Institute of Mental Health [MH094011]
  2. US National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [HD061817]
  3. Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research
  4. Swedish Research Council (Medicine)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Associations between low birth weight (<= 2,500 g) and increased risk of mortality and morbidity provided the foundation for the developmental origins of health and disease hypothesis. Previous between-family studies could not control for unmeasured confounders. Therefore, we compared differentially exposed siblings to estimate the extent to which the associations were due to uncontrolled factors. Our population cohort included 3,291,773 persons born in Sweden from 1973 to 2008. Analyses controlled for gestational age, among other covariates, and considered birth weight as both an ordinal and a continuous variable. Outcomes included mortality after 1 year, cardiac-related death, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, pulmonary circulation problems, stroke, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. We fitted fixed-effects models to compare siblings and conducted sensitivity analyses to test alternative explanations. Across the population, the lower the birth weight, the greater the risk of mortality (e. g., cardiac-related death (low birth weight hazard ratio = 2.69, 95% confidence interval: 2.05, 3.53)) and morbidity (e. g., type 2 diabetes mellitus (low birth weight hazard ratio = 1.79, 95% confidence interval: 1.50, 2.14)) outcomes in comparison with normal birth weight. All associations were independent of shared familial confounders and measured covariates. Results emphasize the importance of birth weight as a risk factor for subsequent mortality and morbidity.

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