4.4 Review

Is gestational diabetes mellitus an independent risk factor for macrosomia: a meta-analysis?

期刊

ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS
卷 291, 期 4, 页码 729-735

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-014-3545-5

关键词

Gestational diabetes mellitus; Macrosomia; Cohort study; Case-control study; Meta-analysis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81373011]
  2. Anhui Provincial Natural Science Foundation [1408085MH160]
  3. Dietary Nutrition Research and Mission Fund of Danone Institution [DIC2014-08]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of our meta-analysis was to explore whether gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is an independent risk factor for macrosomia or not. Three databases were systematically reviewed and reference lists of relevant articles were checked. Meta-analysis of published epidemiological studies (cohort and case-control studies) comparing whether GDM was associated with macrosomia. Calculations of pooled estimates were conducted in random-effect models. Heterogeneity was tested by using Chi square test and I (2) statistics. Publication bias was estimated from Egger's test (linear regression method) and Begg's test (rank correlation method). Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria, including five cohort studies and seven case-control studies. The meta-analysis showed that GDM was associated with macrosomia independent of other risk factors. The adjusted odds ratio was 1.71, 95 % CI (1.52, 1.94) in random-effect model, stratified analyses showed no differences regarding different study design, quality grade, definition of macrosomia, location of study and number of confounding factors adjusted for. There was no indication of a publication bias either from the result of Egger's test or Begg's test. Our findings indicate that GDM should be considered as an independent risk factor for newborn macrosomia. To adequately evaluate the clinical evolution of GDM need to be carefully assessed and monitored.

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

4.4
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