The association between caesarean section and childhood asthma: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Investigating the association between caesarean section (SC) and childhood asthma has shown contradictory results in different studies. The present study was conducted to determine the association between SC and childhood asthma. Material and method The present study was conducted based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. All the steps of the study were conducted independently by two reviewers from the inception until February 1, 2019. In case of disagreement, the third reviewer resolved it. We searched international online databases, including Scopus, Cochrane Library, PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science (ISI), Science Direct, and Google scholar. The results of studies were combined using random effects model, and heterogeneity was measured through I2 index and Cochran’s Q test. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software was used for meta-analysis. The significance level of all tests was considered to be P < 0.05. Results The heterogeneity rate was high (I2 = 67.31%, P < 0.001) in 37 studies. The results showed that SC increased the risk of childhood asthma (RR (relative risk) = 1.20 [95% CI 1.15–1.25, P < 0.001]). The association between emergency and elective SC and childhood asthma was significant with RR of 1.18 (95% CI 1.07–1.29, P < 0.001) in 13 studies and 1.23 (95% CI 1.20–1.26, P < 0.001) in 13 studies, respectively. The subgroup analysis for RR of childhood asthma in SC indicated that study design (P = 0.306), prospective/retrospective studies (P = 0.470), quality of studies (P = 0.514), continent (P = 0.757), age of diagnosis (P = 0.283) and year of publication (P = 0.185) were not effective in the heterogeneity of studies. Sensitivity analysis by removing one study at a time indicated that the overall estimate is robust. Conclusion According to the meta-analysis, SC (overall, elective, and emergency) increased the risk of childhood asthma. Therefore, it is hoped that developing clinical guidelines and implementing appropriate management plans would diminish the risk of asthma.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".