Cargando…

Parity and Metabolic Syndrome Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 15 Observational Studies With 62,095 Women

BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies have provided inconsistent evidence of the association between parity and metabolic syndrome (MetS) risk. We conducted this first systematic review and meta-analysis to comprehensively and precisely quantify this topic. METHODS: Comprehensive searches of PubMed, E...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sun, Ming-Hui, Wen, Zhao-Yan, Wang, Ran, Gao, Chang, Yin, Jia-Li, Chang, Yu-Jiao, Wu, Qi-Jun, Zhao, Yu-Hong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9314745/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35903312
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.926944
_version_ 1784754391315644416
author Sun, Ming-Hui
Wen, Zhao-Yan
Wang, Ran
Gao, Chang
Yin, Jia-Li
Chang, Yu-Jiao
Wu, Qi-Jun
Zhao, Yu-Hong
author_facet Sun, Ming-Hui
Wen, Zhao-Yan
Wang, Ran
Gao, Chang
Yin, Jia-Li
Chang, Yu-Jiao
Wu, Qi-Jun
Zhao, Yu-Hong
author_sort Sun, Ming-Hui
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies have provided inconsistent evidence of the association between parity and metabolic syndrome (MetS) risk. We conducted this first systematic review and meta-analysis to comprehensively and precisely quantify this topic. METHODS: Comprehensive searches of PubMed, Embase, and the Web of Science databases were conducted to identify observational studies of the association between parity and MetS risk up to 30 January 2022. Study inclusion, data extraction, and quality assessment were checked and reviewed by two investigators independently. Random-effects models were applied to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. This study has been registered with PROSPERO. RESULTS: Two high-quality cohorts and thirteen medium-quality cross-sectional studies involving 62,095 women were finally included. Compared with the nulliparous, the pooled OR of MetS for the ever parity was 1.31 (95% CI = 0.91–1.88, I(2) = 72.6%, n = 3). Compared with the lowest parity number, the pooled OR of MetS for the highest parity number was 1.38 (95% CI = 1.22–1.57, I(2) = 60.7%, n = 12). For the dose-response analysis, the pooled OR of MetS for each increment of one live birth was 1.12 (95% CI = 1.05–1.19, I(2) = 78.6%, n = 6). These findings were robust across subgroups and sensitivity analyses. No evidence of heterogeneity between subgroups was indicated by meta-regression analyses. CONCLUSION: The findings suggested that parity was associated with an increased risk of MetS. A sufficient number of large prospective cohort studies are required to fully verify our findings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/], identifier [CRD42022307703].
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9314745
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93147452022-07-27 Parity and Metabolic Syndrome Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 15 Observational Studies With 62,095 Women Sun, Ming-Hui Wen, Zhao-Yan Wang, Ran Gao, Chang Yin, Jia-Li Chang, Yu-Jiao Wu, Qi-Jun Zhao, Yu-Hong Front Med (Lausanne) Medicine BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies have provided inconsistent evidence of the association between parity and metabolic syndrome (MetS) risk. We conducted this first systematic review and meta-analysis to comprehensively and precisely quantify this topic. METHODS: Comprehensive searches of PubMed, Embase, and the Web of Science databases were conducted to identify observational studies of the association between parity and MetS risk up to 30 January 2022. Study inclusion, data extraction, and quality assessment were checked and reviewed by two investigators independently. Random-effects models were applied to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. This study has been registered with PROSPERO. RESULTS: Two high-quality cohorts and thirteen medium-quality cross-sectional studies involving 62,095 women were finally included. Compared with the nulliparous, the pooled OR of MetS for the ever parity was 1.31 (95% CI = 0.91–1.88, I(2) = 72.6%, n = 3). Compared with the lowest parity number, the pooled OR of MetS for the highest parity number was 1.38 (95% CI = 1.22–1.57, I(2) = 60.7%, n = 12). For the dose-response analysis, the pooled OR of MetS for each increment of one live birth was 1.12 (95% CI = 1.05–1.19, I(2) = 78.6%, n = 6). These findings were robust across subgroups and sensitivity analyses. No evidence of heterogeneity between subgroups was indicated by meta-regression analyses. CONCLUSION: The findings suggested that parity was associated with an increased risk of MetS. A sufficient number of large prospective cohort studies are required to fully verify our findings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/], identifier [CRD42022307703]. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-07-12 /pmc/articles/PMC9314745/ /pubmed/35903312 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.926944 Text en Copyright © 2022 Sun, Wen, Wang, Gao, Yin, Chang, Wu and Zhao. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Medicine
Sun, Ming-Hui
Wen, Zhao-Yan
Wang, Ran
Gao, Chang
Yin, Jia-Li
Chang, Yu-Jiao
Wu, Qi-Jun
Zhao, Yu-Hong
Parity and Metabolic Syndrome Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 15 Observational Studies With 62,095 Women
title Parity and Metabolic Syndrome Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 15 Observational Studies With 62,095 Women
title_full Parity and Metabolic Syndrome Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 15 Observational Studies With 62,095 Women
title_fullStr Parity and Metabolic Syndrome Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 15 Observational Studies With 62,095 Women
title_full_unstemmed Parity and Metabolic Syndrome Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 15 Observational Studies With 62,095 Women
title_short Parity and Metabolic Syndrome Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 15 Observational Studies With 62,095 Women
title_sort parity and metabolic syndrome risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 15 observational studies with 62,095 women
topic Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9314745/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35903312
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.926944
work_keys_str_mv AT sunminghui parityandmetabolicsyndromeriskasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisof15observationalstudieswith62095women
AT wenzhaoyan parityandmetabolicsyndromeriskasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisof15observationalstudieswith62095women
AT wangran parityandmetabolicsyndromeriskasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisof15observationalstudieswith62095women
AT gaochang parityandmetabolicsyndromeriskasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisof15observationalstudieswith62095women
AT yinjiali parityandmetabolicsyndromeriskasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisof15observationalstudieswith62095women
AT changyujiao parityandmetabolicsyndromeriskasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisof15observationalstudieswith62095women
AT wuqijun parityandmetabolicsyndromeriskasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisof15observationalstudieswith62095women
AT zhaoyuhong parityandmetabolicsyndromeriskasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisof15observationalstudieswith62095women