| Literature DB >> 23991424 |
Pei-Xin Wang1, Hong-Tian Li, Long Zhang, Jian-Meng Liu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Studies have reported inconsistent results regarding clinical feature and the prognosis status of the affected children in China melamine-contamination event. We summarized available literatures by performing a review and meta-analysis.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23991424 PMCID: PMC3749533 DOI: 10.1155/2013/868202
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Process of study inclusion in meta-analysis.
The characteristics of studies including in this meta-analysis.
| First author | M/F ratio | Diagnostic age (month)* | Duration of exposure (month)* | Diameter of calculi (mm) | Percent of asymptomatic patients (%) | Patient types | Treatment types | Sample size | Follow-up duration (month) | Quality score | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3 | 6 | 12 | 24 | ||||||||||
| Sun [ | 2.13 : 1 | 11.8, 6–36 | 9.5, 0.5–24 | —, — | 0 | IP | ST, CT | 22 | — | 15 | 20 | 22 | — | 8 |
| Chen [ | 1.88 : 1 | 24.0, 2–96 | 17.0, 2–69 | —, — | 87.8 | OP | NO | 49 | — | 30 | — | — | — | 8 |
| Wen [ | 3.17 : 1 | 23.4, 2–84 | 12.4, — | <10, 100.0% | 38.0 | IP | CT | 50 | 32 | — | — | — | — | 9 |
| Wen [ | 2.61 : 1 | 25.5, 16–56 | —, — | —, — | 0 | IP | ST, CT | 195 | — | — | — | — | 194 | 7 |
| Zhang [ | 0.67 : 1 | 16.0, 1–16 | 15.7, — | <5, 100.0% | — | OP | CT | 54 | 49 | — | — | — | — | 7 |
| Shen [ | — | —, — | —, — | —, — | 93.6 | OP | DW | 265 | 139 | 178 | 234 | 253 | — | 7 |
| Yang [ | 3.00 : 1 | 18.0, 9–33 | 11.1, 5–18 | —, — | 0 | IP | CT | 8 | 6 | — | — | — | — | 10 |
|
Sun [ | 1.47 : 1 | 13.5, — | 12.5, — | —, 94.9% | 65.8 | IP | CT | 29 | 20 | — | — | — | — | 10 |
| OP | CT | 50 | 46 | — | — | — | — | |||||||
|
Kuang [ | 1.82 : 1 | 19.0, 1–36 | 10.8, 1–19 | 1–72, 89.6% | 73.3 | IP | CT | 96 | — | — | 66 | — | 75/91$ | 7 |
| Liu [ | 1.61 : 1 | 19.8, 6–36 | 16.5, 2–36 | 1–9, 100.0% | 91.5 | OP | CT | 47 | — | — | 42 | — | — | 8 |
| Chang [ | 1.24 : 1 | —, — | —, — | —, — | — | OP | DW | 43 | 15 | 21 | 36 | — | — | 6 |
|
Zhang [ | 2.64 : 1 | 14.0, 2–36 | —, — | 5–15, 97.5% | 68.8 | IP | CT | 37 | 30 | — | — | — | — | 8 |
| IP | ST | 43 | — | 41 | — | — | — | |||||||
| Wang [ | 1.47 : 1 | 11.2, 2–66 | —, — | —, — | 99.4 | OP | CT | 389 | 295 | 306 | — | — | — | 7 |
| Sun [ | 0.81 : 1 | 14.0, 2–96 | 11.0, 2–29 | —, 76.9% | 92.3 | IP | CT | 65 | 46 | — | — | — | — | 9 |
|
Tang [ | 1.68 : 1 | —, 2–120 | —, — | 2–13, — | — | OP | CT | 44 | 30 | — | — | — | — | 7 |
| OP | DW | 30 | 14 | — | — | — | — | |||||||
| Zhang [ | — | —, — | —, — | >4, — | — | OP | CT | 41 | 7 | — | — | — | — | 6 |
| Zhu [ | 2.15 : 1 | 15.6, 3–36 | —, — | 4–10, 100.0% | — | IP, OP | NO | 75 | — | — | — | 59 | — | 5 |
| Zhu [ | 0.77 : 1 | 9.2#, 2–66 | —, — | 3–20, — | 98.2 | OP | CT | 28 | 6 | — | — | — | — | 7 |
| He [ | 0.67 : 1 | 18.0, 5–36 | —, 1–18 | <5, 100.0% | 73.3 | OP | CT | 60 | 54 | — | — | — | — | 9 |
|
Shang [ | 1.70 : 1 | 26.0, 13–48 | —, — | —, 67.9% | — | IP | ST | 27 | — | — | — | 25 | — | 8 |
| IP | CT | 54 | — | — | — | 51 | — | |||||||
| Zhang [ | 1.78 : 1 | 16.0, 2–36 | 15.0, 2–36 | —, — | — | IP | ST, CT | 98 | — | 61/98 | 78/90 | 86/91 | — | 8 |
| Mi [ | 2.00 : 1 | 44.4, 1–72 | —, — | —, 95.0% | — | OP | CT | 15 | 13 | — | — | — | — | 7 |
| Long [ | 0.68 : 1 | 37.0, 19–72 | 14.0, 2–32 | 4–11, — | — | IP, OP | CT | 37 | — | 34 | — | — | — | 8 |
| Wang [ | 1.54 : 1 | 20.0, 3–36 | —, — | 4–19, — | 80.3 | IP, OP | CT | 127 | 94 | 111 | 113 | — | — | 8 |
| Xu [ | 1.55 : 1 | 20.4, 1–60 | —, 1–36 | —, 100.0% | — | OP | DW | 86 | — | 86 | — | — | — | 9 |
M: male; F: female; IP: inpatient; OP: outpatient; ST: surgical treatment; CT: conservative treatment; DW: only drinking more water; NO: no description.
*The data was expressed as mean and range.
#The value was the median; in order to facilitate the calculation, we treated it as mean.
$The study [38] followed up the patients at 18 months after treatment initiation.
Subgroup analyses regarding the pooled recovery rates (%) at 1, 3, and 6 months.
| Subgroup | Rate (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 month | 3 months | 6 months | |
| Treatment types | |||
| Nonspecific treatment | 46.2 (35.5–57.3)* | 72.5 (48.7–88.1) | 87.6 (83.4–90.8) |
| Specific treatment | 71.9 (61.7–80.3) | 81.5 (71.0–88.8) | 85.2 (74.7–91.9) |
| Patient types | |||
| Inpatient | 70.5 (63.5–76.6) | 77.6 (51.9–91.8) | 82.1 (64.3–92.1) |
| Outpatient | 64.5 (49.2–77.3) | 71.2 (62.0–80.8) | 87.8 (83.9–90.8) |
| Diagnostic age | |||
| ≥18 months | 77.8 (66.1–86.3) | 88.2 (68.1–96.3) | 83.5 (65.5–93.1) |
| <18 months | 74.7 (60.8–84.9) | 76.5 (62.0–86.6) | 87.4 (79.8–92.4) |
| Duration of exposure | |||
| ≥12 months | 81.2 (62.8–91.8) | 71.7 (52.8–85.2) | 79.9 (48.2–94.4) |
| <12 months | 71.2 (59.8–80.4) | 68.2 (46.6–84.0) | 87.5 (80.7–92.1) |
*P value for test of heterogeneity between subgroup estimates was <0.001; all other P values for test of heterogeneity were >0.05.
Figure 2Funnel plots for the recovery rate at 1 month (a) and at 3 months (b).