Archive.lstmed.ac.uk



Table 1: Study characteristicsAuthor, Year, CountyStudy, study typeN cases include in our IPDChildren’s age in years(mean ± SD)Continuous assessment of number of cigarettesAssessment of paternal smokingPotential mediatorsPotential confounder variables assessedStudy quality (assessed with NIH toolaSGA/LGAPre-termBreastfeedingMaternal BMI after pregnancyMaternal BMI before pregnancyMaternal educationM?ller,2014DenmarkDanish National Birth Cohort,prospective study445447.0 ± 0.3yesyesyes, defined in study population, as <10th respectively >90th percentile adjusted for gestational age and genderyesyes (≥1month)yesyesyes, combination of education and occupation (low, medium, high)bfairBettiol,2010BrazilRibeir?o Preto birth cohort,prospective study72310.6 ± 0.3yesyes yes, based on the Williams curve (Williams et al., 1982)yesyes (≥1month)nonoyes, at least 9-10 years school (assessed in categories)goodDa Silva,2010Brazil S?o Luís birth cohort6728.2 ± 0.3yesyes yes, based on the Williams curve (Williams et al., 1982)yesyes (≥1month)yesnoyes, at least 9-10 years school (assessed in categories)goodGilman,2008United States Collaborative Perinatal Project (CPP),prospective study12516Ca. 7yesnoyes, based on United States percentiles(Talge, 2014)yesnoyesnoyes, at least 10 years schoolgoodGrzeskowiak,2015Australia Women’s and Children’s Health Network,prospective study68774.7 ± 0.3yesnoyes, calculated with generic birth weight centile calculator from yesyes (any breastfeeding yes/no)yesnonogoodHowe,2012United Kingdom ALPAC,prospective study912715 ± 3.6yesyes yes, based on British percentiles (Cole 1998)yesyes (≥1month)yesyesyes, at least A levelgoodBoerschmann,2010Germany German GDM offspring study,prospective study49213.5 ± 4.6yesyes yes, based on German percentiles (Voigt, 1996)yesyes (Fully breastfed ≥3 months)yesnonofair, because of limited external validityJones,1999Australia “live births in Tasmania”,prospective study390ca. 8no, categorical assessment “null”“1-10”,“11-20”,“21-40”,“>40” (cig. per day)noYes, based on Australian percentiles (Dobbins 2012)yesyes (≥1month)yesyesyes, completed high schoolfair, because of limited external validityKoshy,2010United Kingdom “15 primary schools in Merseyside”,retrospective study18297.9 ± 1.9yesyes only sga, IUGR computedyesyes (any breastfeeding yes/no)nonoyes, secondary education and abovefairOken, 2005United Statesc Project Viva,prospective study9707.9 ± 0.8no, categorical assessment “Never smoker”, “<1”, “1-4”, “5-14”, “15-24”, “≥25” (cig. per day)noyes, based on US percentiles (Oken, 2003)yesyes (≥1month)yesyesyes, completed high schoolgoodSyme,2010Canada Saguenay Youth Study (SYS),retrospective cohort study of prenatal exposure to maternal cigarette smoking47813.7 ± 1.2yesyes yes, based on US percentiles(Talge, 2014)yesyes (total duration in months)yesyesyes, completed high schoolgoodSharma,2008United States Prevention’s Pregnancy Nutrition Surveillance System (PNSS),prospective study712703.8 ± 0.5yesnoyes, based on United States percentiles(Talge, 2014)yesyes (any breastfeeding yes/no)yesyesyes, ≥12 years schoolgoodThiering,2011Germany GINI LISA,prospective study632313.0 ± 3.9yesnoyes, using German percentiles (Voigt, 1996)yesyes (≥1 month exclusively breastfed)yesyesyes, ≥10 years schoolgoodPrabhu,2010United Kingdom SEATON,prospective study8417.7 ± 2.7yesyesyes, using British percentiles (Cole 1998)yesyes, (breastfeeding at 4th month after birth)noyesyes (age at leaving education at least 16)goodWider?e,2003Norway Trondheim and Bergen (Norway), and Uppsala (Sweden),prospective study5155.3 ± 0.2yesnoyes, defined in study population, as <10th respectively >90th percentile adjusted for sex, parityyesyes (≥1.5 months)yesnoyes, at least 9 years school + 1-2 years further educationgoodVon Kries,2002Germany“six Bavarian communities”,retrospective study55946.2 ± 0.4no, categorical assessment “no cigarettes”, “1-10”, “11-20”, “>20” (cig. per day)noyes, using German percentiles (Voigt, 1996)yesyes (≥1 months fully breastfed)noyesyes, at least >9 years schoolfaira Detailed quality assessment in online supplement Table S1 b Socio-occupational status based on the current or most recent job within 6 months, or, if the woman was attending school, on the type of education. Women in training were categorized according to the type of education they headed for. The category “high” included women in management jobs or in jobs requiring higher education (generally more than 4 years beyond high school). Office workers, service workers, skilled manual workers, and women in the military constituted the “middle” category. The “low” category included unskilled workers and unemployed women. Women with no connection to the labour market (not in training, not disability-retired, not house wife, not on public support) were also categorized in the “low” category.c the most recent outcome data (mid-childhood) assessed in that study was used (not included in that publication) ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download