4.5 Article

High serum iron level is associated with an increased risk of hypertensive disorders during pregnancy: a meta-analysis of observational studies

期刊

NUTRITION RESEARCH
卷 35, 期 12, 页码 1060-1069

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.nutres.2015.09.021

关键词

Serum iron; Pregnancy; Hypertension; Preeclampsia; Eclampsia; Meta-analysis

资金

  1. China Nutrition Society of the Maternal and Child Nutrition Branch

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The exact cause of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy (HDP) has not been clearly elucidated. Some researchers have recently investigated the relationship between the serum iron level and the incidence of HDP. However, the results are inconsistent, and these data have not been systematically evaluated. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the real association between the serum iron level and the incidence of HDP. We searched for published and ongoing trials in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, the Chinese Biomedical Database, CNKI, and the WANFANG database from January 1990 to May 2015 to identify studies that met our predefined criteria. Finally, 26 studies, including 1 cross-sectional study, 23 case-control studies, and 2 prospective nested case-control studies, including 1349 patients and 1119 control participants, were selected for this meta-analysis. The pooled results show that a high serum iron level increased the incidence of HDP (standard mean deviation [SMD], 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-2.06; P < .0001), especially gestational hypertension (SMD, 3.65; 95% CI, 1.50-5.81; P = .0009) and preeclampsia (SMD, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.76-1.78; P < .0001). No significant difference was seen between the eclampsia groups and the control participants (SMD, 3.34; 95% CI, -0.02 to 6.69; P = .05). The results of this meta-analysis indicate that a high serum iron level is associated with an increased risk of HDP, especially gestational hypertension and preeclampsia. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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