Cesarean section and risk of childhood leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A large number of studies pointed that being delivered by cesarean section (CS) would affect the health outcomes of offspring, however, whether CS would affect the risk of childhood leukemia remained uncertain. This study conducted a meta-analysis to quantitatively evaluate whether being delivered by CS would influence the onset of childhood leukemia. METHODS: PubMed, Embase and Web of Science databases were searched from 3rd June, 1950 to 13th October, 2019 to identify the literature, which examined the relationship between CS and childhood leukemia. This study used Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess the quality of literature. Subgroup analyses were conducted on region, mode of delivery, design of the study and number of confounders adjusted. Egger's test and Begg's test were performed to evaluate possible publication bias. RESULTS: The pooled odds ratio (OR) estimates illustrated that children delivered by CS had a higher risk of developing leukemia [OR 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-1.17, P = 0.002] and lymphoblastic leukemia (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.03-1.23, P = 0.009), while a significant association for myeloid leukemia was not observed (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92-1.20, P = 0.451). Results of subgroup analyses indicated that elective CS would increase the risk of childhood lymphoblastic leukemia (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06-1.27, P = 0.002). However, a statistical relationship between emergency CS and lymphoblastic leukemia was not observed (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.93-1.23, P = 0.364). CONCLUSIONS: CS would increase the risk of childhood lymphoblastic leukemia. It is worth noting that subgroup analyses shows that elective CS rather than emergency CS increases the risk of lymphoblastic leukemia in offspring.

Exercise training modalities in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Current international guidelines recommend aerobic, resistance, and combined exercises for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). In our study, we conducted a network meta-analysis to assess the comparative impact of different exercise training modalities on glycemic control, cardiovascular risk factors, and weight loss in patients with T2DM. METHODS: We searched five electronic databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the differences between different exercise training modalities for patients with T2DM. The risk of bias in the included RCTs was evaluated according to the Cochrane tool. Network meta-analysis was performed to calculate mean difference the ratio of the mean and absolute risk differences. Data were analyzed using R-3.4.0. RESULTS: A total of 37 studies with 2208 patients with T2DM were included in our study. Both supervised aerobic and supervised resistance exercises showed a significant reduction in HbA1c compared to no exercise (0.30% lower, 0.30% lower, respectively), however, there was a less reduction when compared to combined exercise (0.17% higher, 0.23% higher). Supervised aerobic also presented more significant improvement than no exercise in fasting plasma glucose (9.38 mg/dl lower), total cholesterol (20.24 mg/dl lower), triacylglycerol (19.34 mg/dl lower), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (11.88 mg/dl lower). Supervised resistance showed more benefit than no exercise in improving systolic blood pressure (3.90 mmHg lower]) and total cholesterol (22.08 mg/dl lower]. In addition, supervised aerobic exercise was more powerful in improving HbA1c and weight loss than unsupervised aerobic (HbA1c: 0.60% lower; weight loss: 5.02 kg lower) and unsupervised resistance (HbA1c: 0.53% lower) exercises. CONCLUSION: Compared with either supervised aerobic or supervised resistance exercise alone, combined exercise showed more pronounced improvement in HbA1c levels; however, there was a less marked improvement in some cardiovascular risk factors. In terms of weight loss, there were no significant differences among the combined, supervised aerobic, and supervised resistance exercises. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Our study protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO); registration number: CRD42017067518 .