Birth spacing and risk of adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes: A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The association between extreme birth spacing and adverse outcomes is controversial, and available evidence is fragmented into different classifications of birth spacing. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of observational studies to evaluate the association between birth spacing (i.e., interpregnancy interval and interoutcome interval) and adverse outcomes (i.e., pregnancy complications, adverse birth outcomes). Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model, and the dose-response relationships were evaluated using generalized least squares trend estimation. RESULTS: A total of 129 studies involving 46 874 843 pregnancies were included. In the general population, compared with an interpregnancy interval of 18-23 months, extreme intervals (<6 months and ≥ 60 months) were associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes, including preterm birth, small for gestational age, low birthweight, fetal death, birth defects, early neonatal death, and premature rupture of fetal membranes (pooled OR range: 1.08-1.56; p < 0.05). The dose-response analyses further confirmed these J-shaped relationships (pnon-linear < 0.001-0.009). Long interpregnancy interval was only associated with an increased risk of preeclampsia and gestational diabetes (pnon-linear < 0.005 and pnon-linear < 0.001, respectively). Similar associations were observed between interoutcome interval and risk of low birthweight and preterm birth (pnon-linear < 0.001). Moreover, interoutcome interval of ≥60 months was associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery (pooled OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.04-2.83). For pregnancies following preterm births, an interpregnancy interval of 9 months was not associated with an increased risk of preterm birth, according to dose-response analyses (pnon-linear = 0.008). Based on limited evidence, we did not observe significant associations between interpregnancy interval or interoutcome interval after pregnancy losses and risk of small for gestational age, fetal death, miscarriage, or preeclampsia (pooled OR range: 0.76-1.21; p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Extreme birth spacing has extensive adverse effects on maternal and infant health. In the general population, interpregnancy interval of 18-23 months may be associated with potential benefits for both mothers and infants. For women with previous preterm birth, the optimal birth spacing may be 9 months.

Translation and validation of the Chinese version of the orthorexia nervosa assessment questionnaires among college students.

PURPOSE: The main objective of the study was to translate, validate, and compare the Chinese ORTO scales (ORTO-15 and ORTO-R). The secondary objective was to assess factors that may be related with risk of orthorexia nervosa (ON). METHODS: Two cross-sectional surveys were conducted on March-to-June 2021 for ORTO-15 and April 2022 for ORTO-R. ORTO questionnaires were translated into Chinese using the forward-backward-forward method. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA), discriminant validity and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to examine the construct validity of the questionnaires. The internal consistency was assessed using the Cronbach alpha coefficient and the test-retest reliability. Multivariate linear regression analysis was used to explore potential factors related with ON scores. RESULTS: Totally, 1289 and 1084 eligible participants were included for assessment of ORTO-15 and ORTO-R, with the mean age of 20.9 ± 2.0 years and 21.0 ± 2.3 years. The internal consistency of Chinese ORTO-15 scale and ORTO-R scale were both satisfactory (α = 0.79, ICC = 0.79; α = 0.77, ICC = 0.82). However, all ORTO-15 models showed a poor fit using CFA whereas the ORTO-R was characterized by acceptable goodness-of-fit. Multivariate linear regression indicated that physical activities and mental disorders were positively associated with ON risk assessed by both ORTO-R and ORTO-15. CONCLUSION: The Chinese ORTO-R scale was a more reliable tool to screen for ON tendencies than the Chinese version of ORTO-15. Mental disorders and physical activities might be associated with the increased ON risk. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V (descriptive cross-sectional study).

Unsaturated Fatty Acids in Mental Disorders: An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses.

Unsaturated fatty acids might be involved in the prevention of and improvement in mental disorders, but the evidence on these associations has not been comprehensively assessed. This umbrella review aimed to appraise the credibility of published evidence evaluating the associations between unsaturated fatty acids and mental disorders. In this umbrella review, systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies comparing unsaturated fatty acids (including supplementation, dietary intake, and blood concentrations) in participants with mental disorders with healthy individuals were included. We reanalyzed summary estimates, between-study heterogeneity, predictive intervals, publication bias, small-study effects, and excess significance bias for each meta-analysis. Ninety-five meta-analyses from 29 systematic reviews were included, encompassing 43 studies on supplementation interventions, 32 studies on dietary factors, and 20 studies on blood biomarkers. Suggestive evidence was only observed for dietary intake, in which higher intake of fish was associated with reduced risk of depression (RR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.69, 0.89) and Alzheimer disease (RR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.63, 0.87), and higher intake of total PUFAs might be associated with a lower risk of mild cognitive impairment (RR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.61, 0.84). Evidence showed that PUFA supplementation was favorable but had weak credibility in anxiety, depression, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), dementia, mild cognitive impairment, Huntington's disease, and schizophrenia (P-random effects <0.001-0.040). There was also weak evidence on the effect of decreased circulating n-3 (É·-3) PUFAs among patients on risk of ADHD, ASD, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia (P-random effects <10-6-0.037). Our results suggest that higher levels of unsaturated fatty acids may relieve symptoms or reduce the risk of various mental disorders; however, the strength of the associations and credibility of the evidence were generally weak. Future high-quality research is needed to identify whether PUFA interventions should be prioritized to alleviate mental disorders.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances exposure during pregnancy and adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) during pregnancy has been suggested to be associated with adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes; however, the findings have been inconsistent. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide an overview of these associations. METHODS: The online databases PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched comprehensively for eligible studies from inception to February 2021. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using random- or fixed-effects models, and dose-response meta-analyses were also conducted when possible. FINDINGS: A total of 29 studies (32,905 participants) were included. The pooled results demonstrated that perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) exposure during pregnancy was linearly associated with increased preterm birth risk (pooled OR per 1-ng/ml increase: 1.01, 95% CIs: 1.00-1.02, P = 0.009) and perfluorononanoate (PFNA) and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) exposure showed inverted U-shaped associations with preterm birth risk (P values for the nonlinear trend: 0.025 and 0.030). Positive associations were also observed for exposure to perfluorodecanoate (PFDA) and miscarriage (pooled OR per 1-ng/ml increase: 1.87, 95% CIs: 1.15-3.03) and PFOS and preeclampsia (pooled OR per 1-log increase: 1.27, 95% CIs: 1.06-1.51), whereas exposure to perfluoroundecanoate (PFUnDA) was inversely associated with preeclampsia risk (pooled OR per 1-log increase: 0.81, 95% CIs: 0.71-0.93). Based on individual evidence, detrimental effects were observed between PFDA exposure and small for gestational age and between PFOA and PFOS and intrauterine growth restriction. No significant associations were found between pregnancy PFAS exposure and other adverse pregnancy outcomes (i.e., gestational diabetes mellitus, pregnancy-induced hypertension, low birth weight, and large and small for gestational age). INTERPRETATION: Our findings indicated that PFOS, PFOA and PFNA exposure during pregnancy might be associated with increased preterm birth risk and that PFAS exposure might be associated with the risk of miscarriage and preeclampsia. Due to the limited evidence obtained for most associations, additional studies are required to confirm these findings.