ArticleBMJ open2017
Periconception endogenous and exogenous maternal sex steroid hormones and risk of asthma and allergy in offspring: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vitamin D supplementation in pregnancy and early infancy in relation to gut microbiota composition andGut microbes · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPregnancy is associated with several hormonal changes which influence the developing fetus. Variations in maternal endogenous hormones and prepregnancy use of hormonal preparations have been linked to asthma and allergy in the offspring, but findings are inconsistent. We plan to undertake a systematic review to synthesise the evidence on the association between endogenous and exogenous maternal sex hormones and the risk of asthma and allergy in the offspring. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Institute of Scientific Information Web of Science, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health, Scopus, Google Scholar, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Global Health, Psychological Information (PsycINFO), Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience (CAB) International and WHO Global Health Library from inception until 2016 to identify relevant studies on the topic. Additional studies will be identified by searching databases of proceedings of international conferences, contacting international experts in the field and searching the references cited in identified studies. We will include analytical epidemiological studies. Two researchers will independently screen identified studies, undertake data extraction and assess risk of bias in eligible studies, while a third reviewer will arbitrate any disagreement. We will use the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool to assess the risk of bias in the studies. We will perform a random-effects meta-analysis to synthesise the evidence. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to rate the strength and quality of the overall evidence with respect to each outcome. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required since the study is a systematic review of published literature. Our findings will be reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016048324.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.