4.4 Review

Maternal prepregnancy BMI or weight and offspring's blood pressure: Systematic review

期刊

MATERNAL AND CHILD NUTRITION
卷 14, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/mcn.12561

关键词

blood pressure; Developmental Origins of Health and Disease; offspring; perinatal programming; prepregnancy BMI; prepregnancy weight

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Emerging evidence suggests that maternal prepregnancy body mass index or weight (MPBW) may be associated with offspring's blood pressure (BP). Therefore, we conducted a systematic reviewfollowing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statementto assess and judge the evidence for an association between MPBW with offspring's later BP. Five data bases were searched without limits. Risk of bias was assessed using the Tool to Assess Risk of Bias in Cohort Studies, and an evidence grade was allocated following the World Cancer Research Fund criteria. Of 2,011 publications retrieved, 16 studies (all cohort studies) were included in the systematic review; thereof, 5 studies (31%) were rated as good-quality studies. Overall, data from 63,959 participants were enclosed. Systolic BP was analysed in 15 (5 good quality), diastolic BP in 12 (3 good quality), and mean arterial pressure in 3 (no good quality) studies. Five good-quality studies of MPBW with offspring's systolic BP as the outcome and 1 good-quality study with offspring's diastolic BP as the outcome observed a significant association. However, after adding offspring's anthropometry variables to the statistical model, the effect attenuated in 4 studies with systolic BP to nonsignificance, the study with diastolic BP remained significant. No good-quality studies were found with respect to offspring's later mean arterial pressure. In conclusion, this systematic review found suggestive, but still limited, evidence for an association between MPBW with offspring's later BP. The available data suggest that the effect might be mainly mediated via offspring's anthropometry.

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