Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Persistent organic pollutant exposure as a risk factor of gestational diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Kouiti, Malak; Castillo-Hermoso, María Ángeles; Youlyouz-Marfak, Ibtissam; Khan, Khalid Saeed; Thangaratinam, Shakila; Olmedo-Requena, Rocío; Zamora, Javier; Jiménez-Moléon, José Juan.
Afiliación
  • Kouiti M; Departamento de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain.
  • Castillo-Hermoso MÁ; Laboratory of Health Sciences and Technologies, Higher Institute of Health Sciences, Hassan First University of Settat, Settat, Morocco.
  • Youlyouz-Marfak I; Departamento de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain.
  • Khan KS; Laboratory of Health Sciences and Technologies, Higher Institute of Health Sciences, Hassan First University of Settat, Settat, Morocco.
  • Thangaratinam S; Departamento de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain.
  • Olmedo-Requena R; Consorcio Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain.
  • Zamora J; Institute for Metabolism and Systems Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
  • Jiménez-Moléon JJ; Birmingham Women's and Children's National Health Service Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
BJOG ; 131(5): 579-588, 2024 Apr.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38044810
BACKGROUND: Findings related to the association between persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are inconclusive. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the strength of the association between POP exposure and GDM in a systematic review with meta-analysis. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science were searched until July 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: Cohort and case-control studies analysing the association between POPs and GDM. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed the risk of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies scale (QUIPS). Standardised mean differences were pooled using random-effect models. MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen articles including 12 216 participants were selected. The risk of bias was high in four articles (25%), moderate in 11 (68.75%) and low in one (6.25%). Small mean difference between GDM cases and controls was observed for PFHpA (0.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.1-0.35, I2 = 0.0%), PCB180 (0.37, 95% CI 0.19-0.56; I2 = 25.3%), BDE47 (0.23, 95% CI 0.0-0.45, I2 = 0%), BDE99 (0.36, 95% CI 0.14-0.59; I2 = 0%), BDE100 (0.42, 95% CI 0.19-0.64; I2 = 0%) and HCB (0.22, 95% CI 0.01-0.42, I2 = 39.6%). No considerable difference was observed for the rest of POPs. CONCLUSION: Small mean differences between GDM cases and controls were observed for some POPs. However, evidence shows mostly moderate quality and results were heterogeneous. Improved research methodology is needed to assess POPs and GDM risk.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Diabetes Gestacional Tipo de estudio: Systematic_reviews Límite: Female / Humans / Pregnancy Idioma: En Revista: BJOG Asunto de la revista: GINECOLOGIA / OBSTETRICIA Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: España Pais de publicación: Reino Unido
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Diabetes Gestacional Tipo de estudio: Systematic_reviews Límite: Female / Humans / Pregnancy Idioma: En Revista: BJOG Asunto de la revista: GINECOLOGIA / OBSTETRICIA Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: España Pais de publicación: Reino Unido