Protective Effect of Breast-Feeding against Obesity in Childhood: Can a Meta-analysis of Published Observational Studies Help to Validate the Hypothesis?

2009 ◽  
pp. 145-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Arenz ◽  
R. Von Kries
Keyword(s):  
Protective Effect ◽  
Breast Feeding ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis

scholarly journals Evidence on the effect of gender of newborn, antenatal care and postnatal care on breastfeeding practices in Ethiopia: a meta-analysis andmeta-regression analysis of observational studies

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. e023956 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tesfa Dejenie Habtewold ◽  
Nigussie Tadesse Sharew ◽  
Sisay Mulugeta Alemu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Regression Analysis ◽  
Antenatal Care ◽  
Breast Feeding ◽  
Postnatal Care ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
P Value ◽  
Timely Initiation ◽  
Breastfeeding Practices

ObjectivesThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the association of gender of newborn, antenatal care (ANC) and postnatal care (PNC) with timely initiation of breast feeding (TIBF) and exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) practices in Ethiopia.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesTo retrieve all available literature, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, WHO Global Health Library, Web of Science and SCOPUS databases were systematically searched and complemented by manual searches. The search was done from August 2017 to September 2018.Eligibility criteriaAll observational studies including cross-sectional, case-control, cohort studies conducted in Ethiopia from 2000 to 2018 were included. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for quality assessment of included studies.Data extraction and synthesisStudy area, design, population, number of mothers (calculated sample size and participated in the study) and observed frequency data were extracted using Joanna Briggs Institute tool. To obtain the pooled effect size, a meta-analysis using weighted inverse variance random-effects model was performed. Cochran’s Q X2test, τ2and I2statistics were used to test heterogeneity, estimate amount of total/residual heterogeneity and measure variability attributed to heterogeneity, respectively. Mixed-effects meta-regression analysis was done to identify possible sources of heterogeneity. Egger’s regression test at p value threshold ≤0.01 was used to examine publication bias. Furthermore, the trend of evidence over time was examined by performing a cumulative meta-analysis.ResultsOf 523 articles retrieved, 17 studies (n=26 146 mothers) on TIBF and 24 studies (n=17 819 mothers) on EBF were included in the final analysis. ANC (OR=2.24, 95% CI 1.65 to 3.04, p<0.001, I2=90.9%), PNC (OR=1.86, 95% CI 1.41 to 2.47, p<0.001, I2=63.4%) and gender of newborn (OR=1.31, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.68, p=0.04, I2=81.7%) significantly associated with EBF. ANC (OR=1.70, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.65, p=0.02, I2=93.1%) was also significantly associated with TIBF but not with gender of newborn (OR=1.02, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.21, p=0.82, I2=66.2%).ConclusionsIn line with our hypothesis, gender of newborn, ANC and PNC were significantly associated with EBF. Likewise, ANC was significantly associated with TIBF. Optimal care during pregnancy and after birth is important to ensure adequate breast feeding. This meta-analysis study provided up-to-date evidence on breastfeeding practices and its associated factors, which could be useful for breastfeeding improvement initiative in Ethiopia and cross-country and cross-cultural comparison.Trial registration numberCRD42017056768

scholarly journals Effect of Vitamin D Supplementation on Risk of Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ziyi Li ◽  
Liangzhi Wu ◽  
Junguo Zhang ◽  
Xin Huang ◽  
Lehana Thabane ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Vitamin D ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Protective Effect ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vitamin D Supplementation ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Objective: Laboratory findings indicated that vitamin D might have a potent protective effect on breast cancer, but epidemiology studies reported conflicting results. The aim of the study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation on risk of breast cancer.Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and abstracts of three major conferences were searched (up to December 8, 2020). Parallel randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation on risk of breast cancer or change of mammography compared with placebo in females were included. Data were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model. Bayesian meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize the results using data from observational studies as priors.Results: Seven RCTs were identified for effect of vitamin D on risk of breast cancer, with 19,137 females included for meta-analysis. No statistically significant effect of vitamin D on risk of breast cancer was found in classical random-effects meta-analysis (risk ratio = 1.04, 95% confidence interval: 0.84–1.28, p = 0.71). When Bayesian meta-analyses were conducted, results remained non-significant. There was no statistically significant effect of vitamin D on mammography density observed: mean difference = 0.46, 95% confidence interval: −2.06 to 2.98, p = 0.72.Conclusion: There is insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation in breast cancer risk and change of mammography density. The protective effect of vitamin D on risk of breast cancer from previous observational studies may be overestimated.Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier CRD42019138718.

scholarly journals Prolonged breastfeeding and protective effects against the development of allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
M.P. Hoang ◽  
J. Samuthpongtorn ◽  
K. Seresirikachorn ◽  
K. Snidvongs
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Protective Effect ◽  
Exclusive Breastfeeding ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Protective Effects ◽  
Insufficient Evidence ◽  
High Quality

Background: There is insufficient evidence to confirm the protective effects of prolonged breastfeeding against the development of allergic rhinitis (AR). Methodology: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the associations between prolonged breastfeeding and AR symptoms later in life. Comparisons were conducted between breastfeeding durations less than 6 months and 6 months or more and between less than 12 months and 12 months or more. Exclusive breastfeeding and nonexclusive breastfeeding were analysed separately. Outcomes were risks of AR development later in life. Results: Twenty-three observational studies (161,611 children, age 2-18 years, 51.50% male) were included. Two studies (9%) were with high quality. Both exclusive and nonexclusive prolonged breastfeeding (6 months or more) decreased the risk of AR. The long-term (12 months or more) nonexclusive breastfeeding lowered the likelihood of AR compared to the 12 months or fewer. The long-term exclusive breastfeeding did not show the same protective effect; however, this result was restricted to only one study. Conclusions: Exclusive breastfeeding and nonexclusive breastfeeding for 6 months or more may have protective effects against the development of AR up to 18 years of age. The findings should be interpreted with caution given the limitation of low-quality observational studies.

Prevention of Ventriculostomy-Related Infections With Prophylactic Antibiotics and Antibiotic-Coated External Ventricular Drains: A Systematic Review

Neurosurgery ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 68 (4) ◽  
pp. 996-1005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam M. Sonabend ◽  
Yoel Korenfeld ◽  
Celina Crisman ◽  
Neeraj Badjatia ◽  
Stephan A. Mayer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Protective Effect ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
External Ventricular Drain ◽  
External Ventricular Drainage ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Antibiotic Administration ◽  
Inclusion Criteria

Abstract BACKGROUND: Ventriculostomy-related infection (VRI) is a severe complication of external ventricular drain use, occurring in 5% to 23% of patients. Preventive measures for VRI include prolonged prophylactic systemic antibiotics (PSAs) and an antibiotic-coated external ventricular drains (ac-EVDs). OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review of all studies evaluating PSAs and ac-EVD for VRI prevention through July 2010. METHODS: Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility and evaluated study quality based on pre-established criteria. Observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that fulfilled inclusion criteria were included in the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Three RCTs and 7 observational studies met our inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The type of antibiotics and VRI definitions varied among these studies. Pooled analysis showed a protective effect of PSAs and ac-EVDs for VRI (risk ratio: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.18-0.56). Results showed moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 53%) explained by the difference in quality among the studies and the inclusion of 1 large positive cohort study. The effect of PSAs and ac-EVDs was unrelated to the type of study (RCT or observational, P for interaction = .55), the route of antibiotic administration (PSAs or ac-EVDs, P = .13), or the quality of the studies (suboptimal vs good/excellent, P = .55). CONCLUSION: RCTs and observational-derived evidence support the use of PSAs throughout the duration of external ventricular drainage; similarly, the use of ac-EVDs to prevent VRI seems to be beneficial. Available data are heterogeneous and of suboptimal quality. Further research is needed to confirm the findings of this meta-analysis. There are not sufficient data to compare the protective effect of ac-EVDs and PSAs.

scholarly journals Facemasks and similar barriers to prevent respiratory illness such as COVID-19: A rapid systematic review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julii Brainard ◽  
Natalia Jones ◽  
Iain Lake ◽  
Lee Hooper ◽  
Paul R Hunter
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Secondary Prevention ◽  
Protective Effect ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Respiratory Illness ◽  
Index Patient ◽  
Health Care Facilities ◽  
Protective Measure ◽  
Specific Information

ABSTRACTThe current pandemic of COVID-19 has lead to conflicting opinions on whether wearing facemasks outside of health care facilities protects against the infection. To better understand the value of wearing facemasks we undertook a rapid systematic review of existing scientific evidence about development of respiratory illness, linked to use of facemasks in community settings.MethodsWe included all study designs. There were 31 eligible studies (including 12 RCTs). Narrative synthesis and random-effects meta-analysis of attack rates for primary and secondary prevention in 28 studies were performed. Results were reported by design, setting and type of face barrier in primary prevention, and by who wore the facemask (index patient or well contacts) in secondary prevention trials. The preferred outcome was influenza-like illness (ILI) but similar outcomes were pooled with ILI when ILI was unavailable. GRADE quality assessment was based on RCTs with support from observational studies.ResultsWhere specific information was available, most studies reported about use of medical grade (surgical paper masks). In 3 RCTs, wearing a facemask may very slightly reduce the odds of developing ILI/respiratory symptoms, by around 6% (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.19, I 29%, low-certainty evidence). Greater effectiveness was suggested by observational studies. When both house-mates and an infected household member wore facemasks the odds of further household members becoming ill may be modestly reduced by around 19% (OR 0.81, 95%CI 0.48 to 1.37, I 45%, 5 RCTs, low certainty evidence). The protective effect was very small if only the well person (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.28, I 11%, 2 RCTs, low uncertainty evidence) or the infected person wore the facemask (very low certainty evidence).DiscussionBased on the RCTs we would conclude that wearing facemasks can be very slightly protective against primary infection from casual community contact, and modestly protective against household infections when both infected and uninfected members wear facemasks. However, the RCTs often suffered from poor compliance and controls using facemasks. Across observational studies the evidence in favour of wearing facemasks was stronger. We expect RCTs to under-estimate the protective effect and observational studies to exaggerate it. The evidence is not sufficiently strong to support widespread use of facemasks as a protective measure against COVID-19. However, there is enough evidence to support the use of facemasks for short periods of time by particularly vulnerable individuals when in transient higher risk situations. Further high quality trials are needed to assess when wearing a facemask in the community is most likely to be protective.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document