Dataset Information

Obesity and gynaecological and obstetric conditions: umbrella review of the literature.

ABSTRACT: Objective To study the strength and validity of associations between adiposity and risk of any type of obstetric or gynaecological conditions.Design An umbrella review of meta-analyses.Data sources PubMed, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, manual screening of references for systematic reviews or meta-analyses of observational and interventional studies evaluating the association between adiposity and risk of any obstetrical or gynaecological outcome.Main outcomes Meta-analyses of cohort studies on associations between indices of adiposity and obstetric and gynaecological outcomes.Data synthesis Evidence from observational studies was graded into strong, highly suggestive, suggestive, or weak based on the significance of the random effects summary estimate and the largest study in the included meta-analysis, the number of cases, heterogeneity between studies, 95% prediction intervals, small study effects, excess significance bias, and sensitivity analysis with credibility ceilings. Interventional meta-analyses were assessed separately.Results 156 meta-analyses of observational studies were included, investigating associations between adiposity and risk of 84 obstetric or gynaecological outcomes. Of the 144 meta-analyses that included cohort studies, only 11 (8%) had strong evidence for eight outcomes: adiposity was associated with a higher risk of endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer, antenatal depression, total and emergency caesarean section, pre-eclampsia, fetal macrosomia, and low Apgar score. The summary effect estimates ranged from 1.21 (95% confidence interval 1.13 to 1.29) for an association between a 0.1 unit increase in waist to hip ratio and risk endometrial cancer up to 4.14 (3.61 to 4.75) for risk of pre-eclampsia for BMI >35 compared with <25. Only three out of these eight outcomes were also assessed in meta-analyses of trials evaluating weight loss interventions. These interventions significantly reduced the risk of caesarean section and pre-eclampsia, whereas there was no evidence of association with fetal macrosomia.Conclusions Although the associations between adiposity and obstetric and gynaecological outcomes have been extensively studied, only a minority were considered strong and without hints of bias.

SUBMITTER: Kalliala I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5656976 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLittle is known about the gynaecological health of lesbian and bisexual (LB) women.ObjectivesTo examine differences in incidence and/or prevalence of gynaecological conditions in LB compared with heterosexual women.Search strategyThe systematic review protocol was prospectively registered (PROSPERO-CRD42015027091) and searches conducted in seven databases.Selection criteriaComparative studies published 2000-2015, reporting any benign (non-infectious) and/or malignant gynaecological conditions with no language or setting restrictions.Data collection and analysisInclusions, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted in duplicate. Meta-analyses of condition prevalence rates were conducted where ?3 studies reported results.Main resultsFrom 567 records, 47 full papers were examined and 11 studies of mixed designs included. No studies directly addressing the question were found. Two chronic pelvic pain studies reported higher rates in bisexual compared with heterosexual women (38.5 versus 28.2% and 18.6 versus 6.4%). Meta-analyses showed no statistically significant differences in polycystic ovarian syndrome, endometriosis and fibroids. There was a higher rate of cervical cancer in bisexual than heterosexual women [odds ratio (OR) = 1.94; 95% CI 1.46-2.59] but no difference overall (OR = 0.76; 95% CI 0.15-3.92). There was a lower rate of uterine cancer in lesbian than heterosexual women (OR = 0.28; 95% CI 0.11-0.73) and overall (OR = 0.36; 95% CI 0.13-0.97), but no difference in bisexual women (OR = 0.43; 95% CI 0.06-3.07).ConclusionsMore bisexual women may experience chronic pelvic pain and cervical cancer than heterosexual women. There is no information on potential confounders. Better evidence is required, preferably monitoring sexual orientation in research using the existing validated measure and fully reporting results.Tweetable abstractLesbians have less uterine cancer than heterosexual women; bisexuals have more pelvic pain and cervical cancer.

Project description:Simple Summary Ovarian cancer is the most lethal cancer of the female genital tract despite major advances in both surgical and oncological treatments. This is in part due to difficulties in identifying those most at risk of developing ovarian cancer, and that there are currently no effective screening strategies. Whilst 20% of cases have a genetic component, the majority have no obvious cause. Many risk factors have been associated with ovarian cancer, although the strength of this evidence remains unclear. This umbrella review attempts to review the validity of associations between non-genetic risk factors and the risk of developing or dying from ovarian cancer. There were six associations that were supported by strong evidence. Greater height, BMI and use of HRT increased the risk, whilst the use of oral contraceptive pill reduced that risk. This review will enable further research into these areas and may promote identification of individuals at high risk. Abstract Several non-genetic factors have been associated with ovarian cancer incidence or mortality. To evaluate the strength and validity of the evidence we conducted an umbrella review of the literature that included systematic reviews/meta-analyses that evaluated the link between non-genetic risk factors and ovarian cancer incidence and mortality. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and performed a manual screening of references. Evidence was graded into strong, highly suggestive, suggestive or weak based on statistical significance of the random effects summary estimate and the largest study in a meta-analysis, the number of cases, between-study heterogeneity, 95% prediction intervals, small study effects, and presence of excess significance bias. We identified 212 meta-analyses, investigating 55 non-genetic risk factors for ovarian cancer. Risk factors were grouped in eight broad categories: anthropometric indices, dietary intake, physical activity, pre-existing medical conditions, past drug history, biochemical markers, past gynaecological history and smoking. Of the 174 meta-analyses of cohort studies assessing 44 factors, six associations were graded with strong evidence. Greater height (RR per 10 cm 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11–1.20), body mass index (BMI) (RR ≥ 30 kg/m2 versus normal 1.27, 95% CI 1.17–1.38) and three exposures of varying preparations and usage related to hormone replacement therapy (HRT) use increased the risk of developing ovarian cancer. Use of oral contraceptive pill reduced the risk (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.69–0.80). Refining the significance of genuine risk factors for the development of ovarian cancer may potentially increase awareness in women at risk, aid prevention and early detection.

Project description:Objective To evaluate the strength and validity of the evidence for the association between adiposity and risk of developing or dying from cancer.Design Umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Data sources PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and manual screening of retrieved references.Eligibility criteria Systematic reviews or meta-analyses of observational studies that evaluated the association between indices of adiposity and risk of developing or dying from cancer.Data synthesis Primary analysis focused on cohort studies exploring associations for continuous measures of adiposity. The evidence was graded into strong, highly suggestive, suggestive, or weak after applying criteria that included the statistical significance of the random effects summary estimate and of the largest study in a meta-analysis, the number of cancer cases, heterogeneity between studies, 95% prediction intervals, small study effects, excess significance bias, and sensitivity analysis with credibility ceilings.Results 204 meta-analyses investigated associations between seven indices of adiposity and developing or dying from 36 primary cancers and their subtypes. Of the 95 meta-analyses that included cohort studies and used a continuous scale to measure adiposity, only 12 (13%) associations for nine cancers were supported by strong evidence. An increase in body mass index was associated with a higher risk of developing oesophageal adenocarcinoma; colon and rectal cancer in men; biliary tract system and pancreatic cancer; endometrial cancer in premenopausal women; kidney cancer; and multiple myeloma. Weight gain and waist to hip circumference ratio were associated with higher risks of postmenopausal breast cancer in women who have never used hormone replacement therapy and endometrial cancer, respectively. The increase in the risk of developing cancer for every 5 kg/m2 increase in body mass index ranged from 9% (relative risk 1.09, 95% confidence interval 1.06 to 1.13) for rectal cancer among men to 56% (1.56, 1.34 to 1.81) for biliary tract system cancer. The risk of postmenopausal breast cancer among women who have never used HRT increased by 11% for each 5 kg of weight gain in adulthood (1.11, 1.09 to 1.13), and the risk of endometrial cancer increased by 21% for each 0.1 increase in waist to hip ratio (1.21, 1.13 to 1.29). Five additional associations were supported by strong evidence when categorical measures of adiposity were included: weight gain with colorectal cancer; body mass index with gallbladder, gastric cardia, and ovarian cancer; and multiple myeloma mortality.Conclusions Although the association of adiposity with cancer risk has been extensively studied, associations for only 11 cancers (oesophageal adenocarcinoma, multiple myeloma, and cancers of the gastric cardia, colon, rectum, biliary tract system, pancreas, breast, endometrium, ovary, and kidney) were supported by strong evidence. Other associations could be genuine, but substantial uncertainty remains. Obesity is becoming one of the biggest problems in public health; evidence on the strength of the associated risks may allow finer selection of those at higher risk of cancer, who could be targeted for personalised prevention strategies.

Dataset Information

Obesity and gynaecological and obstetric conditions: umbrella review of the literature.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets