| Literature DB >> 33816422 |
Xiaoyan Li1, Qing Yu1, Feng Qin1, Biyu Zhang1, Yanming Lu1.
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the association between serum vitamin D concentration and the risk of urinary tract infection (UTI) in children. Human studies reported the serum vitamin D level in children with UTI and healthy controls were collected from PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane databases. The strictly standardized mean difference (SSMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated to evaluate the relationship between serum vitamin D levels and risk of UTI. The results of analysis showed that serum vitamin D levels in children with UTI were significantly lower than healthy control children (SSMD: 0.891, 95% CI: 0.707-1.075, p < 0.000; SSMD: 0.797, 95% CI: 0.500-1.094, p < 0.000, respectively). It can be concluded that there is a significant negative relationship between serum vitamin D level and risk of UTI in children.Entities:
Keywords: UTI; children; meta-analysis; urinary tract infection; vitamin D
Year: 2021 PMID: 33816422 PMCID: PMC8017300 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.637529
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Characteristics of included studies.
| Georgieva et al. ( | Sweden | 2019 | Cross-sectional study | Under 3 years | 76 | 44 | 80.8 ± 21.2 | 101.1 ± 33 |
| Noorbakhsh et al. ( | Iran | 2019 | Prospective cohort study | 2.17 y | 25 | 40 | 114.25 ± 52.625 | 114.75 ± 62 |
| Mahyar et al. ( | Iran | 2018 | Case-control study | Patients: 53.2 ± 35.6months | 70 | 70 | 51 ± 21.5 | 42.25 ± 18.5 |
| Shalaby et al. ( | Egypt | 2018 | Prospective case-control study | 2 months−6 years | 50 | 50 | 10.5 ± 2.7 | 27.9 ± 5.6 |
| Övünç Hacihamdioglu et al. ( | Turkey | 2016 | Cross-sectional prospective study | Patients:6.8 ± 3.6 y | 36 | 38 | 10.5 ± 2.7 | 59.25 ± 27.5 |
| Tekin et al. ( | Turkey | 2014 | Controlled prospective study | Patients: 2.57 ± 2.56 y | 82 | 64 | 29.25 ± 8.25 | 69 ± 11.75 |
Figure 1PRISMA flow diagram for included studies.
JBI critical appraisal checklist applied for included studies.
| Georgieva et al. ( | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | 4/8 |
| Noorbakhsh et al. ( | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | 5/8 |
| Mahyar et al. ( | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | 4/8 |
| Shalaby et al. ( | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | 4/8 |
| Övünç Hacihamdio | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | 5/8 |
| Tekin et al. ( | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | 6/8 |
| Q1. Were the criteria for inclusion in the sample clearly defined? | |||||||||
| Q2. Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail?? | |||||||||
| Q3. Was exposure measured in a valid and reliable way? | |||||||||
| Q4. Were objective, standard criteria used for measurement of the condition? | |||||||||
| Q5. Were confounding factors identified? | |||||||||
| Q6. Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated? | |||||||||
| Q7. Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way? | |||||||||
| Q8. Was appropriate statistical analysis used? | |||||||||
Figure 2Forest plots showing the association between vitamin D level with the risk of urinary tract infection in children.
Figure 3Funnel plots showing the association between vitamin D levels with the risk of urinary tract infection in children.