| Literature DB >> 34066379 |
Xianying Min1, Chao Li1, Yan Yan1.
Abstract
Evidence has suggested that parental age at birth is a risk factor of offspring attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We conducted a meta-analysis of observational studies investigating the association between parental age and offspring ADHD. We conducted a systematic search that followed the recommended guidelines for performing meta-analyses on PUBMED, EMBASE, and Web of Science up to 8 April 2021. We calculated pooled risk estimates from individual age with and without adjusting for possible confounding factors. Dose-response analysis for parental age and ADHD risk was performed. Eleven studies were selected in this meta-analysis, which included 111,101 cases and 4,417,148 participants. Compared with the reference points, the lowest parental age category was associated with an increased risk of ADHD in the offspring, with adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of 1.49 (95% confidence intervals (95%CI) 1.19-1.87) and 1.75 (95%CI 1.31-2.36) for the mother and father, respectively. The highest parental age was statistically insignificant, with adjusted ORs of 1.11 (95%CI 0.79-1.55) and 0.93 (95%CI 0.70-1.23) for mother and father separately. Dose-response analysis indicated a non-linear relationship of parental age with offspring ADHD, with the lowest ADHD risk at 31-35 years old. The results of this meta-analysis support an association between young parental age and the risk of ADHD. More high-quality studies are needed to establish whether the association with parental age is causal.Entities:
Keywords: ADHD; attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder; children; meta-analysis; parental age
Year: 2021 PMID: 34066379 PMCID: PMC8124990 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18094939
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1PRISMA flow diagram showing the detailed selection of eligible studies.
Characteristics of included studies.
| Study | Study Site | Study Design |
| Number with ADHD in Study | Outcome | Diagnostic Method | Type of Adjusted Factors a | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | SES | Psyc. | Prenatal | Parental Age | Exposure | |||||||
| Chang et al. (2014) [ | Sweden | Cohort | 1,495,543 | 30,674 | ADHD | ICD–10 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
| Chudal R. et al. (2015) [ | Finland | Case-control | 49,534 | 10,409 | ADHD | ICD–10 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Galera et al. (2011) [ | Canada | cohort | 2057 | 330 | ADHD | DSM–IV | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Gustafsson et al. (2011) [ | Sweden | Case-control | 32,012 | 237 | ADHD | DSM–III–R, DSM–IV | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
| Hvolgaard et al. (2017) [ | Danish | Sibling cohort | 943,785 | 12,294 | ADHD | ICD–10 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Janecka et al. (2019) [ | Danish | Cohort | 1,490,745 | 25,307 | ADHD | ICD–10 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Kim et al. (2020) [ | Korea | Case-control | 28,973 | 2112 | ADHD | K–ARS | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Sauver et al. (2004) [ | America | Case-control | 5701 | 305 | ADHD | DSM–IV | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
| Sciberras et al. (2011) [ | Australia | Cohort | 4464 | 57 | ADHD | DSM–IV | ||||||
| Silva et al. (2014) [ | Australia | Case-control | 43,062 | 12,991 | ADHD | DSM–IV | ||||||
| Wang et al. (2019) [ | America | Cohort | 321,272 | 16,385 | ADHD | DSM–IV | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Note: SES, social–economic status. a Confounding represents model covariates for gender, social–economic status (parental educational level, household income), psychiatric history (parental psychiatric history), prenatal situation (birth order, birth year, birth weight, gestational age, Apgar score, history of comorbidity), parental age (adjusted maternal age for paternal age), exposure (prenatal tobacco exposure, prenatal alcohol exposure, prenatal illegal drug exposure).
Figure 2Risk of ADHD according to the lowest maternal age category vs. reference points. Pooled crude effects (A) and adjusted effects (B) for maternal age from random-effects meta-analyses are shown.
Figure 3Risk of ADHD according to the lowest paternal age category vs. reference points. Pooled crude effects (A) and adjusted effects (B) for paternal age from random-effects meta-analyses are shown.
Subgroup analyses for studies included in the analysis.
| Maternal | Paternal | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subgroup Analysis |
| OR (95% CI) | Heterogeneity (I2, |
| OR (95% CI) | Heterogeneity (I2, |
| Lowest vs. referred (crude) | ||||||
| Design | ||||||
| Case-control | 4 | 1.94 (1.26, 2.99) | I2 = 96.4%, | 3 | 2.44 (1.30, 4.57) | I2 = 85.4%, |
| Cohort | 5 | 1.96 (1.41, 2.73) | I2 = 98.4%, | 3 | 1.93 (1.22, 3.05) | I2 = 98.8%, |
| Geographical area | ||||||
| Europe | 3 | 2.57 (2.32, 2.85) | I2 = 85.8%, | 3 | 2.74 (2.28, 3.29) | I2 = 88.0%, |
| America | 3 | 1.35 (0.85, 2.14) | I2 = 87.3%, | 2 | 1.20 (1.09, 1.32) | I2 = 0%, |
| Asia and Oceania | 3 | 2.02 (1.38, 2.96) | I2 = 77.5%, | 1 | 2.89 (1.74, 4.80) | |
| Diagnostic method | ||||||
| ICD–10 | 4 | 2.58 (2.34, 2.83) | I2 = 79.0%, | 4 | 2.75 (2.32, 3.26) | I2 = 82.3%, |
| DSM–IV | 5 | 1.48 (1.12, 1.94) | I2 = 90.4%, | 2 | 1.20 (1.09, 1.32) | I2 = 0%, |
| Lowest vs. referred (adjusted) | ||||||
| Design | ||||||
| Case-control | 5 | 1.52 (1.15, 2.01) | I2 = 98.3%, | 3 | 1.48 (0.84, 2.62) | I2 = 65.3%, |
| Cohort | 3 | 1.41 (0.90, 2.21) | I2 = 81.5%, | 3 | 1.90 (1.31, 2.75) | I2 = 97.9%, |
| Geographical area | ||||||
| Europe | 4 | 1.52 (1.08, 2.13) | I2 = 98.6%, | 3 | 2.22 (1.96, 2.52) | I2 = 66.3%, |
| America | 3 | 1.27 (0.93, 1.75) | I2 = 63.6%, | 2 | 1.02 (0.51, 2.03) | I2 = 55.5%, |
| Asia and Oceania | 1 | 2.19 (1.57, 3.05) | 1 | 0.36 (1.36, 4.09) | ||
| Diagnostic method | ||||||
| ICD–10 | 5 | 1.62 (1.19, 2.20) | I2 = 98.2%, | 4 | 2.24 (2.01, 2.51) | I2 = 49.5%, |
| DSM–IV | 3 | 1.27 (0.93, 1.75) | I2 = 63.3%, | 2 | 1.02 (0.51, 2.03) | I2 = 55.5%, |
| Highest vs. referred (crude) | ||||||
| Design | ||||||
| Case-control | 4 | 1.08 (0.90, 1.30) | I2 = 57.8%, | 3 | 1.20 (0.89, 1.63) | I2 = 76.3%, |
| Cohort | 3 | 0.94 (0.77, 1.15) | I2 = 69.7%, | 2 | 0.87 (0.71, 1.07) | I2 = 95.2%, |
| Geographical area | ||||||
| Europe | 3 | 0.95 (0.81, 1.13) | I2 = 77.4%, | 3 | 0.90 (0.75, 1.07) | I2 = 90.9%, |
| America | 1 | 1.11 (0.80, 1.54) | 1 | 1.07 (0.84, 1.36) | ||
| Asia and Oceania | 3 | 1.13 (0.82, 1.56) | I2 = 71.0%, | 1 | 1.65 (1.27, 2.15) | |
| Diagnostic method | ||||||
| ICD–10 | 4 | 1.05 (0.85, 1.30) | I2 = 83.6%, | 4 | 1.02 (0.83, 1.26) | I2 = 93.5%, |
| DSM–IV | 3 | 1.00 (0.87, 1.14) | I2 = 0%, | 1 | 1.07 (0.84, 1.36) | |
| Highest vs. referred (adjusted) | ||||||
| Design | ||||||
| Case-control | 3 | 1.10 (0.72, 1.67) | I2 = 78.2%, | 3 | 1.20 (0.95, 1.51) | I2 = 0%, |
| Cohort | 2 | 1.12 (0.54, 2.30) | I2 = 97.4%, | 2 | 0.73 (0.51, 1.05) | I2 = 98.3%, |
| Geographical area | ||||||
| Europe | 3 | 0.99 (0.65, 1.51) | I2 = 94.8%, | 3 | 0.81 (0.59, 1.10) | I2 = 96.7%, |
| America | 1 | 1.11 (0.80, 1.54) | 1 | 1.99 (0.70, 5.64) | ||
| Asia and Oceania | 1 | 1.82 (1.05, 3.16) | 1 | 1.22 (0.90, 1.65) | ||
| Diagnostic method | ||||||
| ICD–10 | 4 | 1.11 (0.75, 1.65) | I2 = 93.4%, | 4 | 0.88 (0.66, 1.18) | I2 = 95.8%, |
| DSM–IV | 1 | 1.11 (0.80, 1.54) | 1 | 1.99 (0.70, 5.64) | ||
Figure 4Dose–response association between (A) maternal age and offspring ADHD risk; (B) paternal age and offspring ADHD risk. Solid lines represent a relative risk; dashed lines represent 95% confidence intervals.