| Literature DB >> 36206761 |
Jing Zhu1, Shuai Jiang2,3, Xiaohong Jiang1, Kaiming Luo1, Xiaolin Huang1, Fei Hua1.
Abstract
Lipocalin-2 (LCN2) is becoming recognized as a pleiotropic mediator of metabolic disorders. However, the relationship between LCN2 and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is not well understood. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore it. A systematic search of Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wan-fang Database was done for relevant articles published up to September 29, 2021. Standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated to explore the association of LCN2 levels with GDM using Revman 5.3 and Stata 15.1. Fifteen case-control studies were included in this meta-analysis. The patients with GDM had significantly higher levels of blood LCN2 than parturients with normal glucose tolerance (SMD=3.41, 95% CI=2.24 to 4.58). Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were conducted to investigate the source of heterogeneity. Likely sources of heterogeneity were age and testing methods. This study found that GDM showed higher blood LCN2 levels than controls. However, caution is warranted on the interpretation of these findings. Standardized LCN2 measurement methods and longitudinal studies are required to disentangle and better understand the relationships observed. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36206761 PMCID: PMC9546583 DOI: 10.1055/a-1909-1922
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Horm Metab Res ISSN: 0018-5043 Impact factor: 2.788
Fig. 1Flowchart of database search and study identification.
Table 1 Characteristics of the included articles.
| Study [Ref] | Country | Study Design | Sample Size (GDM/controls) | Mean Age | Mean BMI | Fasting | Methods | Measurement trimesters | GDM criteria | NOS score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
D’Anna et al. (2009)
| Italy | NCC | 41/82 | 27.2 | 26.7 | Yes | ELISA | First | C & C | 9 |
|
Duan et al. (2012)
| China | CC | 77/77 | 29.5 | 22.7 | Yes | ELISA | Third | ADA | 7 |
|
Wang et al. (2013)
| China | CC | 26/66 | NA | NA | Yes | ELISA | Third | IADPSG | 9 |
|
Lou et al. (2014)
| China | CC | 84/96 | 28.31 | 20.43 | Yes | ELISA | Third | ADA | 7 |
|
Guo (2014)
| China | CC | 28/21 | 28.5 | NA | Yes | ELISA | Third | CSOG | 7 |
|
Ma et al. (2015)
| China | NCC | 101/100 | 29.92 | 22.78 | Yes | ELISA | First, Second, third | IADPSG | 9 |
|
Ravnsborg et al. (2016)
| Denmark | NCC | 101/104 | 32.35 | ≥27 | No | MRMMS | First | EDPSG | 7 |
|
He et al. (2018)
| China | CC | 37/34 | 31.6 | 22.9 | Yes | ELISA | Second | ADA | 7 |
|
Kang (2018)
| China | NCC | 107/110 | 28.8 | 25.81 | Yes | ELISA | First | CSOG | 8 |
|
Guo et al. (2019)
| China | CC | 85/50 | 29.12 | 22.54 | Yes | ELISA | Third | ADA | 7 |
|
Yin et al. (2020)
| China | CC | 49/39 | 32.47 | 23.15 | Yes | ELISA | Third | IADPSG | 7 |
|
Mierzynski et al. (2021)
| Poland | NCC | 153/84 | 27.59 | 23.71 | Yes | ELISA | Second | WHO | 8 |
|
Saucedo et al. (2021)
| Mexico | CC | 65/65 | 31.65 | 32.36 | Yes | Magpix | Third | IADPSG | 7 |
BMI: Body Mass Index; NCC: Nested case-control; CC: Case-control; ELISA: Enzyme Linked Immuno Sorbent Assay; MRM-MS: Multiple Reaction Monitoring- Mass Spectrometry; C & C: Carpenter and Coustan’s criteria; EDPSG: European Diabetic Pregnancy Study Group; ADA: American Diabetes Association; IADPSG: International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group; CSOG: Chinese Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology; WHO: World Health Organization; NOS: Newcastle-Ottawa Scale; NA: Not available.
Fig. 2The forest plot about the association of blood LCN2 levels with GDM.
Table 2 The results of Meta-regression analysis.
| Coef. | t-Value | p | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean pre-pregnancy BMI | –2.10 | –1.40 | 0.190 | –5.409, 1.209 |
| Sampling trimesters | –0.25 | –0.33 | 0.749 | –1.930, 1.423 |
| Detecting methods | –4.21 | –2.71 | 0.018 | –7.570, –0.850 |
| Mean age | –3.02 | –2.38 | 0.035 | –5.783, –0.253 |
| Fasting sample | –4.18 | –1.75 | 0.103 | –9.333, 0.973 |
BMI: Body mass index; Coef: Coefficient; CI: Confidence interval.
Fig. 3Forest plots for the subgroup analysis for the difference of blood LCN2 level between patients with GDM and parturients with NGT according to testing methods.
Fig. 4Forest plots for the subgroup analysis for the difference of blood LCN2 level between patients with GDM and parturients with NGT according to age.
Fig. 5The plot of sensitivity analysis about the association of blood LCN2 levels with GDM.
Fig. 6Funnel plots for the publication bias underlying the meta-analysis of the association of blood LCN2 levels with GDM.