Prevalence and Risk Factors of Asthma in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aims to evaluate the prevalence and risk factors of asthma in children through a meta-analysis. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were comprehensively retrieved for studies on the prevalence and risk factors of childhood asthma (CA) published between January 1, 2015, and July 8, 2024. Studies were screened and selected based on predefined eligibility criteria, and pertinent data were extracted. The quality of eligible studies was evaluated through the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Statistical analyses were undertaken via Stata 16 and R 4.4.1. 45 studies comprising 647,414 participants were included. The pooled prevalence of CA was 11.9% (95% CI: 8.8–15.8%). The meta-analysis identified several risk factors for CA, including prenatal exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) (OR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.80–0.98, P = 0.021), prenatal exposure to acid-suppressive medications (OR = 1.11, 95% CI: 1.04–1.19, P = 0.002), maternal folic acid supplementation during pregnancy (OR = 1.18, 95% CI: 1.10–1.27, <i>p</i> < 0.001), as well as <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> infection in childhood (OR = 2.07, 95% CI: 1.35–3.15, <i>p</i> = 0.001). The prevalence rate of asthma among children was approximately 11.9%. Prenatal exposure to PFAS and acid-suppressive medications, <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> infection in childhood were proved to be risk factors for asthma. Folic acid supplementation during pregnancy is positively associated with a reduced risk of asthma in children. Further large-scale prospective research is warranted to unveil the roles and significance of these factors.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 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 teacher head, 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".