| Literature DB >> 29137163 |
Xu Deng1, Wenyan Li2, Yan Luo3, Shudan Liu4, Yi Wen5, Qin Liu6.
Abstract
Background: Epidemiological studies reporting the effect of small fetuses (SF) on puberty development have shown inconsistent results. Objective: To examine current study evidence and determine the strength and direction of the association between SF and puberty timing.Entities:
Keywords: low birth weight; meta-analysis; puberty; small fetuses; small for gestational age; systematic review
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29137163 PMCID: PMC5708016 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14111377
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Flow diagram of literature search.
Characteristics of studies included in the systematic review.
| Study | Sample Size, | Age Range | Follow-Up Period | Type of SF | Definition of SF | Reference Standard | Country/Areas | Main Outcomes | Mark of Onset of Puberty | Proportion of Individuals Entered Puberty, % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ford 2000 [ | 206/60 | 0–14 years | 1977–1996 | LBW | Birth weight <1500 g | This study | Australia | No. of breast stage > 3, No. of testicular volume ≥ 12 mL | B3 for girls, Testicular volume > 12 mL for boys | 80.6 |
| Veening 2004 [ | 29/24 | 9–15 years | 1980–1983 | SGA | Birth weight below the 10th percentile corrected for gestational age, gender and parity | Dutch reference | Netherlands | No. of breast stage > 2, No. of testicular volume ≥ 4 mL, Age at menarche | B2 for girls, Testicular volume > 4 mL for boys | 72.9 |
| Weissenbruch 2006 [ | 100.0 * | |||||||||
| Lazar 2003 [ | 76/52 | 0–14 years | Not mentioned | SGA | Birth weight <−2 SD for gestational age | This study | Israel | Age at menarche, age at onset of puberty | Pubertal signs (gonadarche with or without pubarche) appeared | 100.0 * |
| Persson 1999 [ | 101/806 | 0–18 years | 1973–1995 | SGA | Birth weight <−2 SD for gestational age | This study | Sweden | Age at onset of puberty, age at menarche | Growth spurt | 100.0 * |
| Chaudhari 2008 [ | 73/90 | 0–15 years | 1987–2001 | SGA | India criterion | India reference | India | No. of Tanner stage > 2, age at menarche | B2 for girls, G2 for boys | 74.0, 100.0 * |
| Wehkalampi 2011 [ | 35/146 | 2–16 years | 1978–1985 | SGA | Birth weight <−2 SD | This study | Finland | Age at menarche | Growth spurt | 62.4 * |
| Ibáñez 2000 [ | 12/42 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | LBW | Birth weight <−1.5 SD | This study | Spain | Age at menarche | B2 for girls | 100.0 * |
| Ibáñez 2006 [ | 50/94 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | LBW | Birth weight <−2 SD | This study | Spain | Age at onset of puberty, Age at menarche | B2 for girls | 100.0 * |
| Fledelius 1982 [ | 302/237 | 10–18 years | 1959–1979 | LBW | Birth weight <2000 g | This study | Denmark | Age at menarche | Not mentioned | 100.0 * |
| Bhargava 1995 [ | 252/176 | 0–14 years | 1968–1985 | LBW | Birth weight <2000 g | This study | India | Age at menarche | B2 for girls, G2 for boys | Not mentioned |
SF—small fetuses; SGA—small for gestational age; LBW—low birth weigh; SD—standard deviation; B—breast development stage; G—genitalia development stage. * proportion of individuals occurred menarche.
The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the methodology quality.
| Study | Selection | Comparability | Outcome | Quality Scores | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Representativeness of the Exposed Cohort | Selection of the Non Exposed Cohort | Ascertainment of Exposure | Outcome of Interest Was Not Present at Start of Study | Comparability of Cohorts on the Basis of the Design or Analysis | Assessment of Outcome | Was Follow-Up Long Enough for Outcomes to Occur | Adequacy of Follow Up of Cohorts | ||
| Ford2000 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| Veening 2004 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Weissenbruch 2006 [ | |||||||||
| Lazar 2003 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Fledelius 1982 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 7 |
| Persson 1999 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Chaudhari 2008 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Bhargava 1995 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 7 |
| Ibáñez 2000 [ | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Wehkalampi 2011 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Ibáñez 2006 [ | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
Figure 2Forest plot for the number of pubertal children between SF group and Control group.
Figure 3Forest plot for the number of pubertal children in boys and girls between SF group and Control group.
Figure 4Sensitivity analysis for the number of pubertal children.
Figure 5Forest plot for the age at onset of puberty between SF group and Control group.
Figure 6Forest plot for the age at menarche between SF group and Control group.
Figure 7Forest plot for subgroup analysis on age at menarche between SF group and Control group.
Figure 8Sensitivity analysis for the age at menarche.