You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Review
Birth weight and childhood wheezing disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis
  1. Teumzghi F Mebrahtu,
  2. Richard G Feltbower,
  3. Darren C Greenwood,
  4. Roger C Parslow
  1. Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
  1. Correspondence to Teumzghi F Mebrahtu, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK; mt09tfm{at}leeds.ac.uk

Abstract

Background Previous observational studies have claimed that birth weight and childhood wheezing disorders are associated although the results remained inconsistent. One systematic review and two systematic reviews that included meta-analyses reported inconsistent results. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate this.

Methods An online search of published papers linking childhood asthma and wheezing disorders with birth weight up to February 2014 was carried out using EMBASE and Medline medical research databases. Summary ORs were estimated using random-effects models. Subgroup meta-analyses were performed to assess the robustness of risk associations and between-study heterogeneity.

Results A total of 37 studies comprising 1 712 737 participants were included in our meta-analysis. The unadjusted summary ORs for risk of childhood wheezing disorders associated with low birth weight (<2.5 kg) were 1.60 (95% CI 1.39 to 1.85, p<0.001) and 1.37 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.79, p=0.02) when compared with ≥2.5 and 2.5–4.0 kg birthweight groups, respectively. The overall summary OR for high birth weight (>4 kg) as compared to the 2.5–4.0 kg birthweight group was 1.02 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.04, p=0.13). There was substantial heterogeneity in the unadjusted low birth weight risk estimates which was not accounted for by predefined study characteristics. There was no significant heterogeneity in the high birth weight risk estimates. There was some evidence of funnel plot asymmetry and small study effects in the low birth weight (2.5 vs ≥2.5 kg and <2.5 vs 2.5–4 kg) OR estimates.

Conclusions Our results suggest that low birth (<2.5 kg) is an independent risk factor for wheezing disorders during childhood and adolescence although there was substantial heterogeneity among the risk estimates. However, we found no significant association of high birth weight with wheezing disorders.

  • ASTHMA
  • BIRTH WEIGHT
  • META ANALYSIS

https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2014-204783

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Introduction

    Asthma is described as the most common chronic disease in children.1 According to self-reported symptoms, the prevalence of childhood wheezing disorders have increased markedly in the past and are projected to rise in the current decade worldwide.2 There have also been increases in childhood atopic diseases (eczema and rhinoconjunctivitis) and obesity in recent decades.3 ,4 This may indicate that the increases were mainly due to environmental and life-style changes. Observational epidemiological studies also suggest that childhood wheezing disorders have strong links with viral respiratory infections,5 parental smoking6 and childhood overweight.7 ,8

    Low birth weight (<2.5 kg) is the most important factor affecting neonatal and postnatal mortality.9 ,10 Low-birth weight infants are also more likely to develop health problems,11–13 including respiratory disorders, asthma in particular,14 in their childhood and adulthood life. Past epidemiological studies have also reported that there is a link between low birth weight and childhood wheezing disorders, although results remained inconsistent.15 Syntheses of studies have been carried out in the past,16 ,17 however, the results were inconsistent and the methodologies applied by the authors were less rigorous.

    In a meta-analysis of nine observational epidemiological studies, it was reported that there was an increase of 20% in childhood asthma risk for high birth weight children.16 However, the studies included in this meta-analysis of high birth weight and childhood asthma used a variety of definitions for high birth weight and risk estimations. One of the studies used 3.8 kg,18 three used 4 kg19–22 and another used 4.5 kg23 as cut-off points, while three others used different birthweight measurements;24–26 four used RR18 ,22 ,23 ,27 and five used OR19–21 ,25 ,26 which could potentially affect the summary risk estimate.

    From a meta-analysis of nine studies, Mu et al17 have recently reported that low birth weight increases the risk of asthma by 28% and 34% for studies that used two and three birthweight categories respectively. However, the population's age and birthweight categorisation were not consistent across the studies included. For example, one of the studies used data driven quartile birthweight categories,28 another had a mixture of child and adult populations,21 and three others were treated as adult studies27 ,29 ,30 although the participants were children. And also, one other included study31 used ‘asthma attack’ as an outcome measure for asthma while this may underestimate the true number of cases as many asthmatics may not experience any ‘attack’ at all.

    Until February 2014, more than 40 studies that investigated birth weight and childhood wheezing disorders were published. After the recent published meta-analysis,17 five studies that comprised greater than one million children have been carried out;32–36 however, the results remain inconsistent. Therefore, we aimed to provide an up-to-date investigation of the association between birth weight and childhood wheezing disorders through a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies, using consistent exposure (birthweight) and risk estimation definitions, and the standard WHO definition of age range for children and adolescents.37

    Methods

    Search strategy

    The review was carried out in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses38 while a protocol was registered with PROSPERO.39 An online search was carried out using the EMBASE and MEDLINE databases (see online supplementary table S1). Two authors (TFM and RCP) independently carried out title and abstract reading. Eligible papers were those published as an article, in English, until February 2014 and reported original research on birth weight and wheezing disorders in children 0–19 years of age. Papers were excluded if birth weight was modelled as a continuous variable, no comparison group or risk estimates of birth weight were presented, the study included adult population with no separate data available for children and adolescents (see online supplementary figure S1).

    Data extraction

    Studies were selected by two independent reviewers who also carried out data extraction. Differences were resolved by consensus. The following study characteristics were extracted: authors, year of publication, country, study design, sample size, study age group, outcome (diagnosis) terms used, exposure (birthweight) categories used, exposure categorisation method, outcome ascertainment and exposure ascertainment.

    Data harmonisation

    Exposure variable (birth weight)

    Authors of the included studies used four types of exposure categorisation techniques. For comparability and not to lose data due to variation in categorisation methods, standardisation was undertaken: (1) Where authors assumed the CDC40 and ‘recent’ WHO method41 (<2.5 kg=Low, 2.5–4 kg=normal and >4.0 kg=high) or the ‘old’ WHO method (<2.5 kg=low and ≥2.5 kg=normal),10 the reported adjusted risk estimates and data on the number of cases and non-cases of each weight comparison group were combined for meta-analysis without any change (2) Where authors adopted two or three birthweight categories with CDC or WHO ‘normal’ category as a reference and where the number of participants in each categories were available, the stratum based number of cases and non-cases were aggregated before being combined with the other studies for meta-analysis of unadjusted risk estimates. (3) Where authors adopted two or three birthweight categories with the CDC or WHO normal category as a reference and provided adjusted risk estimates, the stratum based risk estimates were aggregated using recommendations from Hamling et al42 before being combined with the other studies for meta-analysis of adjusted risk estimates. (4) Where authors adopted data driven multiple categories that could not be converted to either of the standard formats, the risk estimates were compiled in a table for descriptive analysis.

    Outcome variable

    Study authors used one or multiple outcome terms in their reporting. Again, for comparability among studies, where authors used a single outcome, for example, asthma or wheezing, the quoted outcome term by the author and its risk estimate was assumed for analysis. However, where the authors used multiple outcome terms, a term that was highest in the hierarchy and its risk estimate were assumed for analysis. For example, if asthma and wheezing were used together, asthma was preferred over wheezing.

    Quality assessment

    Papers included in this review were assessed for risks of bias using Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale.43 Two authors carried out assessment of the studies (see online supplementary table S4).

    Statistical analysis

    In the meta-analyses of all studies, random effects models were preferred as we made an assumption that the studies were not functionally identical and the aim of our meta-analysis was to generalise about other populations in different parts of the world.44 Estimates were pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird45 method.

    If studies presented stratum-specific estimates (eg, by gender), then to provide correct measures of heterogeneity, the risk estimates were aggregated using fixed effect models before being combined with the other studies for meta-analyses of adjusted risk estimates in a random-effects model. Likewise, where authors reported the number of cases and non-cases in each stratum, the total number of cases and non-cases were aggregated before being combined with the other studies for meta-analyses of unadjusted risk estimates of all studies.

    To quantify between-study heterogeneity, the Cochrane Q-test46 and the I2 measure of the proportion of the total heterogeneity explained by between study variation47 were used. Subgroup meta-analyses and sensitivity analysis of unadjusted risk estimates were performed on nine covariates (study characteristics) in order to assess the robustness of the risk associations and levels of between-study heterogeneities. To account for the sources of between-study heterogeneity, meta-regression48 of unadjusted risk estimates were performed using Restricted Maximum Likelihood.

    In investigating evidence of publication bias and small study effects, symmetry funnel plots and bias test models49 ,50 were used. Five per cent significance levels and 95% CIs were adopted throughout. Meta-analyses were carried out in Stata software V.12.51

    Results

    Literature search

    A total of 48 studies that reported either the risk estimates or number of cases and non-cases of wheezing disorders in each exposure group were included in the review. The studies were from Europe (48%), Americas (27%), Asia (17%) and Oceania (8%). Thirty-seven of the total 48 studies either used the standard birthweight categories or presented data that were convertible to the standard formats. These studies were included in the quantitative analysis (table 1).

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis

    Eleven of the 48 studies used data driven birthweight categories which were found to be inconvertible into the standard formats (see online supplementary table S2). The cut-off point ranges for birthweight categories were: 2.0–3.2, 2.1–3.2 and 3.5–4.5 kg, for the ‘Low’, ‘Normal’, and ‘High’ birthweight categories, respectively.23 ,24 ,52–59 One other study used 2.7 kg as a cut-off point.60 The variation in the cut-off points made it difficult to aggregate these studies for meta-analysis; hence they were only described (see online supplementary table S3).

    Quality of studies

    With a maximum score of 9 points available for each article, of the 37 included in the meta-analysis: 13 scored >75%, 18 scored 50–75%, and six scored <50% and their risks of biases can be interpreted as ‘low’, ‘moderate’ and ‘high’, respectively. Of the 11 articles included in the descriptive analysis (see online supplementary table S2), 4 scored >75%, 6 scored 50–75%, and 1 scored <50%.

    Low birth weight and childhood asthma and wheezing disorders

    A total of 30 studies contributed data on the number of cases and non-cases of childhood wheezing disorders that included a total of 1 453 042 children. An overall risk estimate of the studies that compared <2.5 and ≥2.5 kg of birth weight showed that there was a significant increased odds of wheezing disorders (OR: 1.60; 95% CI 1.39 to 1.85, p<0.001) for <2.5 kg of birth weight (figure 1). There was substantial heterogeneity among the studies (I2=82% (95% CI 74% to 88%). A meta-analysis of 11 studies that comprised 105 071 children and provided adjusted ORs for the same birthweight comparison groups also showed an increase of risk by 63% (OR=1.63, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.01, p<0.001) for the <2.5 kg birthweight children (see online supplementary figure S2).

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Meta-analysis of unadjusted ORs of 20 studies that presented data on the number of cases and non-cases of wheezing disorders in the normal (≥2.5 kg) and low (<2.5 kg) birthweight categories. Heterogeneity χ2=108 (df=19) p<0.001, I2=82% (95% CI 74% to 88%), and the estimate of between-study variance τ2=0.06.

    The summary risk estimate of 10 studies that provided data on 2.5–4.0 and <2.5 kg birthweight comparison groups showed that there is 37% associated risk for the <2.5 kg birthweight children (OR=1.37, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.79, p=0.02), and the between-study variation was very high (I2=83%, 95% CI 68% to 89%; figure 2). There was not enough data to carry out meta-analysis of adjusted risk estimates for these birthweight comparison groups—only one study contributed (OR=1.28, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.03, p=0.3)81

    Figure 2
    Figure 2

    Meta-analysis of unadjusted ORs of 10 studies that presented data on the number of cases and non-cases of wheezing disorders in the normal (2.5–4.0 kg) and low (<2.5 kg) birthweight categories. Heterogeneity χ2=50 (df=9) p<0.001, I2=83% (95% CI 68% to 89%), and the estimate of between-study variance τ2=0.09.

    High birth weight and childhood asthma and wheezing disorders

    A total of 10 studies provided data on the number of cases and non-cases of wheezing disorders on 2.5–4 and >4 kg birthweight comparison groups that comprised a total of 781 928 children (figure 3). The overall OR for >4 kg birth weight on childhood wheezing disorders was 1.02 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.04, p=0.13), which was not significantly different from 1. There was no significant heterogeneity among the studies’ OR estimates (I2=0%; 95% CI 0% to 45%). When further investigated if the non-significant heterogeneity was due to the presence of Kallen et al34 study that has dominated the pooled risk estimate, the summary risk estimate and the level of heterogeneity remained stable (OR=1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.15 ; Q=6 (df=8), p=0.63, I2=0%). There were not enough data to carry out meta-analysis of adjusted risk estimates for these birthweight comparison groups—only one study contributed (OR=0.72, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.23, p=0.23).81

    Figure 3
    Figure 3

    Meta-analysis of unadjusted ORs of 10 studies that presented data on the number of cases and non-cases of wheezing disorders in the normal (2.5–4 kg) and high (>4 kg) birthweight categories. Heterogeneity χ2=6 (df=9) p=0.73, I2=0% (95% CI 0% to 45%) and the estimate of between-study variance τ2=0.00.

    Sub-group meta-analyses

    A subgroup meta-analyses of 20 studies that contributed data on wheezing disorder cases and non-cases in the low (<2.5 kg) and normal (≥2.5 kg) birthweight categories showed that the summary risk estimates remained significant in all subgroups of the a priori defined covariates, except if wheezing was used as an outcome term or diagnosis was reported by a parent or the studies were low quality (table 2). When the same analysis was carried out on the studies that reported adjusted ORs for the same birthweight comparison groups, there was no statistically significant risk of association between low birth weight and wheezing disorders if birth weight was extracted from e-records or the study age group were ‘5 years and above’ or the studies were high quality (see online supplementary table S5).

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Subgroup analysis of 20 studies that presented data on the number of cases and non-cases of wheezing disorders in the normal (≥2.5 kg) and low (<2.5 kg) birthweight categories

    When subgroup analyses of 10 studies that contributed data on the wheezing disorder cases and non-cases in the low (<2.5 kg) and normal (2.5–4 kg) birthweight groups were performed, the results showed inconsistent risk of association across all the predefined study characteristics. For example, there was no significant association between low birth weight and wheezing disorders if studies used asthma as an outcome term or sample size of less than 1000 was used or studies were published before 2000 (table 3).

    View this table:
    Table 3

    Subgroup analysis of 10 studies that presented data on the number of cases and non-cases of wheezing disorders in the normal (2.5–4.0 kg) and low (<2.5 kg) birthweight categories

    Subgroup meta-analyses of 10 studies that contributed data on the cases and non-cases of wheezing disorders in the high (>4 kg) and normal (2.5–4 kg) birthweight categories showed that the risk of association was not significant across all categories of the predefined study characteristics and the study quality levels (table 4).

    View this table:
    Table 4

    Subgroup analysis of 10 studies that presented data on the number of cases and non-cases of wheezing disorders in the normal (2.5–4 kg) and high (>4 kg) birthweight categories

    When investigating the sources of between-study heterogeneities of the unadjusted low birthweight ORs, results showed that 59% (p=0.06) of the variance was explained by the a priori selected covariates in the <2.5 and ≥2.5 kg birthweight comparisons (see online supplementary table S6). However, none of the variance was explained by the a priori selected covariates in the <2.5 and 2.5–4 kg birthweight comparisons (see online supplementary table S7).

    Investigating biases (small study effects)

    The funnel plots showed no evidence of asymmetry for the high (>4 vs 2.5–4 kg) birthweight unadjusted ORs (see online supplementary figure S3c). However, there was some evidence of funnel plot asymmetry for the low birth weight (2.5 vs ≥2.5 kg and <2.5 vs 2.5–4 kg) unadjusted OR estimates (see online supplementary figures S3a,b) and low birth weight (2.5 vs ≥2.5 kg) adjusted OR estimates (see online supplementary figure S3d). This was also reflected in Egger's tests, with no evidence of small-study effects for online supplementary figure S3c (p=0.99), but some evidence of asymmetry in effects for online supplementary figure S3a (p=0.02), online supplementary figure S3b (p=0.02) and online supplementary figure S3d (p=0.02).

    Discussion

    In this meta-analysis, we have found that low birth weight was associated with increased risk of childhood wheezing disorders. The risk of association of high birth weight was not statistically significant in contrast to a previous meta-analysis that reported high birth weight was associated with asthma risk (relative risk; RR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.3).16 However, it must be noted that the studies included in the previous meta-analysis had used different cut-off points and measurement types for high birth weight, and risk estimation methods (RR and OR).

    Our pooled risk estimates for low birth weight are moderately higher than those of a recent meta-analysis by Mu et al17 that reported ORs of 1.28 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.50) and 1.34 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.60) for studies that used two and three birthweight categories, respectively. However, the birthweight categorisation and the age of study population used by the studies in their meta-analysis were not consistent, and the fact that we have included more studies than theirs may have possibly influenced the difference in robustness of the summary risk estimates.

    The studies that were not included in our meta-analysis reported inconsistent risk of association for the low birthweight categories (see online supplementary table S3), although we noted that a recent ISAAC phase III study that used similar birthweight categories has reported an OR of 1.20 (95% 1.12 to 1.30).14 However, all the studies reported that there was no risk of association for the high birthweight group which agreed with our findings.

    On the basis of our pooled OR results, we noted that the adjusted and unadjusted summary ORs for two birthweight categories were almost identical. This may strongly suggest that low birth weight is an independent risk factor for childhood wheezing disorders although readers have to bear in mind that our analyses also showed some evidence of bias in our funnel plots and Egger's test of bias 49 ,50 which may indicate that there was potential publication bias towards studies that showed no significant risk of association.86

    On the basis of subgroup analyses of the adjusted and unadjusted subgroup analyses of two birthweight categories, we observed that the summary ORs were lower for the studies that were published after 2000 than for those published before. It is also known that the prevalence of low birth weight has been falling87 while wheezing disorders have been increasing for the last decades in the developed countries.3 This may imply that the risk of association of low birth weight with wheezing disorders is genuine although there could be an overestimation as ‘wheezing’, which is the key symptom for asthma and wheezing disorders, can also be caused by other illnesses such as pneumonia, bronchiolitis and other viral infections in children under five.88

    On the basis of heterogeneity measures (Q-test and I2), we observed that there was a considerable level of between-study variation in the low birthweight unadjusted risk estimates although this could be due to high precision or high sample size studies in our analyses,89 as noted in the forest plot (figure 1). The studies were mostly precise and had narrow CIs. However, there was no significant heterogeneity among the unadjusted risk estimates of high birth weight and asthma and this could be due to having less precise risk estimates with wider CIs, demonstrate by the forest plot (figure 2).

    Our work has limitations and results should be interpreted cautiously. First, in our low birth weight and wheezing disorders summary risk estimates, we have found that there was a significant and substantial level of between-study variation that was not explained by our a priori selected covariates. We also had a significant funnel plot asymmetry and small-study effect bias estimate in our results for the studies that compared normal (≥2.5 or 2.5–4 kg) and low (<2.5 kg) birthweight categories. Second, as in any systematic review and meta-analysis, we cannot rule out the possibility of potentially relevant studies being missed by our search strategy. Third, our results are based on epidemiological observational studies and are solely dependent on the quality of the primary studies included. More importantly, we did not identify any studies conducted in developing countries to include in our meta-analysis so our results may not be relevant in regions not represented in this review.

    The strength of our work is that we were able to produce consistent risk estimates due to our use of harmonised data. Combining adjusted risk estimates was a primary choice among previous authors. This technique may, however, under or overestimate the association between exposure and outcome variables due to exclusion of studies that used non-standard birthweight categories or combining all irrespective of the type of exposure categorisation method used. In order to improve validity of the summary risk estimates, we implemented data harmonisation techniques and were able to include more studies than if we were to use previous authors’ techniques: most importantly, we were able to produce more consistent summary risk estimates of low (<2.5 kg) and high (>4 kg) birth weight on asthma and wheezing disorders than if we were to combine multiple cut-off points as used by previous authors. The other strength of this work is also that we extracted and analysed adjusted and unadjusted risk estimates, which can be used as an internal validation with each other.

    In conclusion, our results suggest that low birth (<2.5 kg) is an independent risk factor for wheezing disorders during childhood and adolescence. However, we found no significant effect of high birth weight on asthma or wheezing disorders.

    What is known on this subject

    • Low birth weight has moderate risk of association with childhood asthma.

    • Previous meta-analyses reported inconsistent risk of association of high birth weight with childhood asthma.

    What this study adds

    • There is strong risk of association of low birth weight with wheezing disorders.

    • There is no significant risk of association between high birth weight and childhood asthma and wheezing disorders.

    • There is significance between-study heterogeneity and small study effect among studies that compared the risk of low birth weight (<2.5 kg) with the normal (≥2.5 or 2.5–4.0 kg) birth weight group.

    References

    1. ↵
      World Health Organization (WHO). Asthma Fact Sheet Number 307. 2013. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs307/en/ (accessed 20 May 2014).
    2. ↵
      1. Masoli M,
      2. Fabian D,
      3. Holt S, et al
      . The global burden of asthma: executive summary of the GINA Dissemination Committee Report. Allergy 2004;59:469–78. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2004.00526.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    3. ↵
      1. Asher MI,
      2. Montefort S,
      3. Björkstén B, et al
      . Worldwide time trends in the prevalence of symptoms of asthma, allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, and eczema in childhood: ISAAC Phases One and Three repeat multicountry cross-sectional surveys. Lancet 2006;368:733–43. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69283-0
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    4. ↵
      1. de Onis M,
      2. Blössner M,
      3. Borghi E
      . Global prevalence and trends of overweight and obesity among preschool children. Am J Clin Nutr 2010;92:1257–64. doi:10.3945/ajcn.2010.29786
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    5. ↵
      1. Singh AM,
      2. Moore PE,
      3. Gern JE, et al
      . Bronchiolitis to asthma: a review and call for studies of gene-virus interactions in asthma causation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2007;175:108–19. doi:10.1164/rccm.200603-435PP
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    6. ↵
      1. Burke H,
      2. Leonardi-Bee J,
      3. Hashim A, et al
      . Prenatal and passive smoke exposure and incidence of asthma and wheeze: systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatrics 2012;129:735–44. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-2196
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    7. ↵
      1. Egan KB,
      2. Ettinger AS,
      3. Bracken MB
      . Childhood body mass index and subsequent physician-diagnosed asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. BMC Pediatr 2013;13:121. doi:10.1186/1471-2431-13-121
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    8. ↵
      1. Lee YL,
      2. Chen Y-C,
      3. Chen Y-A
      . Obesity and the occurrence of bronchitis in adolescents. Obesity 2013;21:E149–53. doi:10.1002/oby.20262
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    9. ↵
      Centers for Diseases prevention and Control (CDC). What: Is low birthweight a health problem? 2009. http://www.cdc.gov/pednss/how_to/interpret_data/case_studies/low_birthweight/what.htm (accessed 20 Jun 2014).
    10. ↵
      1. Kramer MS
      . Determinants of low birth weight: methodological assessment and meta-analysis. Bull World Health Organ 1987;65:663.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    11. ↵
      1. Hardy R,
      2. Wadsworth MEJ,
      3. Langenberg C, et al
      . Birthweight, childhood growth, and blood pressure at 43 years in a British birth cohort. Int J Epidemiol 2004;33:121–9. doi:10.1093/ije/dyh027
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    12. ↵
      1. Barker DJP,
      2. Hales CN,
      3. Fall CHD, et al
      . Type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus, hypertension and hyperlipidaemia (syndrome X): relation to reduced fetal growth. Diabetologia 1993;36:62–7. doi:10.1007/BF00399095
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    13. ↵
      1. Frankel S,
      2. Elwood P,
      3. Smith GD, et al
      . Birthweight, body-mass index in middle age, and incident coronary heart disease. Lancet 1996;348:1478–80. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(96)03482-4
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    14. ↵
      1. Mitchell EA,
      2. Clayton T,
      3. García-Marcos L, et al
      . Birthweight and the risk of atopic diseases: the ISAAC Phase III study. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2014;25:264–70. doi:10.1111/pai.12210
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    15. ↵
      1. Chatkin MN,
      2. Menezes AMB
      . The association between low birthweight and asthma: a systematic literature review. Rev Panam Salud Publica 2005;17:102–9. doi:10.1590/S1020-49892005000200006
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    16. ↵
      1. Flaherman V,
      2. Rutherford GW
      . A meta-analysis of the effect of high weight on asthma. Arch Dis Child 2006;91:334–9. doi:10.1136/adc.2005.080390
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    17. ↵
      1. Mu M,
      2. Ye S,
      3. Bai M-J, et al
      . Birth weight and subsequent risk of asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart Lung Circ 2014;23:511–19. doi:10.1016/j.hlc.2013.11.018
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    18. ↵
      1. Schwartz J,
      2. Gold D,
      3. Dockery DW, et al
      . Predictors of asthma and persistent wheeze in a national sample of children in the United States. Association with social class, perinatal events, and race. Am Rev Respir Dis 1990;142:555–62. doi:10.1164/ajrccm/142.3.555
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    19. ↵
      1. Bolte G,
      2. Schmidt M,
      3. Maziak W, et al
      . The relation of markers of fetal growth with asthma, allergies and serum immunoglobulin E levels in children at age 5–7 years. Clin Exp Allergy 2004;34:381–8. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2004.01890.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    20. ↵
      1. Leadbitter P,
      2. Pearce N,
      3. Cheng S, et al
      . Relationship between fetal growth and the development of asthma and atopy in childhood. Thorax 1999;54:905–10. doi:10.1136/thx.54.10.905
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    21. ↵
      1. Gregory A,
      2. Doull I,
      3. Pearce N, et al
      . The relationship between anthropometric measurements at birth: asthma and atopy in childhood. Clin Exp Allergy 1999;29:330–3. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2222.1999.00485.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    22. ↵
      1. Fergusson DM,
      2. Crane J,
      3. Beasley R, et al
      . Perinatal factors and atopic disease in childhood. Clin Exp Allergy 1997;27:1394–401. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.1997.tb02983.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    23. ↵
      1. Sin DD,
      2. Spier S,
      3. Svenson LW, et al
      . The relationship between birth weight and childhood asthma: a population-based cohort study. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2004;158:60–4. doi:10.1001/archpedi.158.1.60
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    24. ↵
      1. Yuan W,
      2. Fonager K,
      3. Olsen J, et al
      . Prenatal factors and use of anti-asthma medications in early childhood: a population-based Danish birth cohort study. Eur J Epidemiol 2003;18:763–8. doi:10.1023/A:1025390420122
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    25. ↵
      1. Xu B,
      2. Pekkanen J,
      3. Laitinen J, et al
      . Body build from birth to adulthood and risk of asthma. Eur J Public Health 2002;12:166–70. doi:10.1093/eurpub/12.3.166
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    26. ↵
      1. Rasanen M,
      2. Kaprio J,
      3. Laitinen T, et al
      . Perinatal risk factors for asthma in Finnish adolescent twins. Thorax 2000;55:25–31. doi:10.1136/thorax.55.1.25
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    27. ↵
      1. Yuan W,
      2. Basso O,
      3. Sorensen HT, et al
      . Fetal growth and hospitalization with asthma during early childhood: a follow-up study in Denmark. Int J Epidemiol 2002;31:1240–5. doi:10.1093/ije/31.6.1240
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    28. ↵
      1. Taveras EM,
      2. Camargo CA Jr.,
      3. Rifas-Shiman SL, et al
      . Association of birth weight with asthma-related outcomes at age 2 years. Pediatr Pulmonol 2006;41:643–8. doi:10.1002/ppul.20427
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    29. ↵
      1. Steffensen FH,
      2. Sorensen HT,
      3. Gillman MW, et al
      . Low birth weight and preterm delivery as risk factors for asthma and atopic dermatitis in young adult males. Epidemiology 2000;11:185–8. doi:10.1097/00001648-200003000-00018
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    30. ↵
      1. Remes ST,
      2. Patel SP,
      3. Hartikainen AL, et al
      . High birth weight, asthma and atopy at the age of 16 yr. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2008;19:541–3. doi:10.1111/j.1399-3038.2007.00707.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    31. ↵
      1. Rona R,
      2. Gulliford M,
      3. Chinn S
      . Effects of prematurity and intrauterine growth on respiratory health and lung function in childhood. BMJ 1993;306:817. doi:10.1136/bmj.306.6881.817
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    32. ↵
      1. To T,
      2. Guan J,
      3. Wang C, et al
      . Is large birth weight associated with asthma risk in early childhood? Arch Dis Child 2012;97:169–71. doi:10.1136/adc.2010.187047
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    33. ↵
      1. Wang W-H,
      2. Chen P-C,
      3. Hsieh W-S, et al
      . Joint effects of birth outcomes and childhood body mass index on respiratory symptoms. Eur Respir J 2012;39:1213–19. doi:10.1183/09031936.00091311
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    34. ↵
      1. Kallen B,
      2. Finnstrom O,
      3. Nygren K-G, et al
      . Association between preterm birth and intrauterine growth retardation and child asthma. Eur Respir J 2013;41:671–6. doi:10.1183/09031936.00041912
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    35. ↵
      1. Miyake Y,
      2. Tanaka K
      . Lack of relationship between birth conditions and allergic disorders in Japanese children aged 3 years. J Asthma 2013;50:555–9. doi:10.3109/02770903.2013.790422
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    36. ↵
      1. Yang HJ,
      2. Qin R,
      3. Katusic S, et al
      . Population-based study on association between birth weight and risk of asthma: a propensity score approach. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2013;110:18–23. doi:10.1016/j.anai.2012.10.010
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    37. ↵
      World Health Organization (WHO). Maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health: Adolescent development. 2014. http://www.who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/topics/adolescence/dev/en/ (accessed 27 May 2014).
    38. ↵
      1. Moher D,
      2. Liberati A,
      3. Tetzlaff J, et al
      . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009;339:b2535. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    39. ↵
      1. Mebrahtu T,
      2. Feltbower R,
      3. Greenwood D, et al
      . Birth weight, childhood asthma and wheezing disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2014. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42014010424 (accessed 2 May 2014).
    40. ↵
      Centers for Diseases prevention and Control (CDC). Pediatric and Pregnancy Nutrition Surveillance System: PedNSS Health Indicators. 2009. http://www.cdc.gov/pednss/what_is/pednss_health_indicators.htm (accessed 27 May 2014).
    41. ↵
      World Health Organization (WHO). International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision (ICD-10)-2014-WHO Version for ;2014:Disorders related to length of gestation and fetal growth (P05-P08). 2014. http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2014/en#/P05-P08 (accessed 3 Dec 2014).
    42. ↵
      1. Hamling J,
      2. Lee P,
      3. Weitkunat R, et al
      . Facilitating meta-analyses by deriving relative effect and precision estimates for alternative comparisons from a set of estimates presented by exposure level or disease category. Stat Med 2008;27:954–70. doi:10.1002/sim.3013
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    43. ↵
      1. Wells G,
      2. Shea B,
      3. O'connell D, et al
      . The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2000. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp (accessed 20 May 2014).
    44. ↵
      1. Borenstein M,
      2. Hedges LV,
      3. Higgins JPT, et al
      . Fixed-effect versus random-effects models. Introduction to meta-analysis. 1st edn. UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2009:59–133.
    45. ↵
      1. DerSimonian R,
      2. Laird N
      . Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986;7:177–88. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    46. ↵
      1. Whitehead A,
      2. Whitehead J
      . A general parametric approach to the meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Stat Med 1991;10:1665–77. doi:10.1002/sim.4780101105
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    47. ↵
      1. Higgins JPT,
      2. Thompson SG
      . Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002;21:1539–58. doi:10.1002/sim.1186
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    48. ↵
      1. Lau J,
      2. Ioannidis JPA,
      3. Schmid CH
      . Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough. Lancet 1998;351:123–7. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)08468-7
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    49. ↵
      1. Egger M,
      2. Smith GD,
      3. Schneider M, et al
      . Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629–34. doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    50. ↵
      1. Sterne JA,
      2. Egger M,
      3. Smith GD
      . Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. BMJ 2001;323:101–5. doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7304.101
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    51. ↵
      StataCorp. Stata statistical software: Release 12.1. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation, 2011.
    52. ↵
      1. Gold DR,
      2. Burge HA,
      3. Carey V, et al
      . Predictors of repeated wheeze in the first year of life: the relative roles of cockroach, birth weight, acute lower respiratory illness, and maternal smoking. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999;160:227–36. doi:10.1164/ajrccm.160.1.9807104
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    53. ↵
      1. Mai X-M,
      2. Almqvist C,
      3. Nilsson L, et al
      . Birth anthropometric measures, body mass index and allergic diseases in a birth cohort study (BAMSE). Arch Dis Child 2007;92:881–6. doi:10.1136/adc.2006.110692
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    54. ↵
      1. Garcia-Marcos L,
      2. Valverde-Molina J,
      3. Castanos Ortega ML, et al
      . Percent body fat, skinfold thickness or body mass index for defining obesity or overweight, as a risk factor for asthma in schoolchildren: which one to use in epidemiological studies? Matern Child Nutr 2008;4:304–10. doi:10.1111/j.1740-8709.2008.00144.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    55. ↵
      1. Davidson R,
      2. Roberts SE,
      3. Wotton CJ, et al
      . Influence of maternal and perinatal factors on subsequent hospitalisation for asthma in children: evidence from the Oxford record linkage study. BMC Pulm Med 2010;10:14. doi:10.1186/1471-2466-10-14
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    56. ↵
      1. Jeong Y,
      2. Jung-Choi K,
      3. Lee JH, et al
      . Body weight at birth and at age three and respiratory illness in preschool children. J Prev Med Pub Health 2010;43:369–76. doi:10.3961/jpmph.2010.43.5.369
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    57. ↵
      1. Brew BK,
      2. Marks GB,
      3. Investigators C
      . Perinatal factors and respiratory health in children. Clin Exp Allergy 2012;42:1621–9. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2012.04056.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    58. ↵
      1. Lu FL,
      2. Hsieh C-J,
      3. Caffrey JL, et al
      . Body mass index may modify asthma prevalence among low-birth-weight children. Am J Epidemiol 2012;176:32–42. doi:10.1093/aje/kwr484
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    59. ↵
      1. Nuolivirta K,
      2. Koponen P,
      3. Helminen M, et al
      . Weight gain in infancy and post-bronchiolitis wheezing. Acta Paediatr 2012;101:38–42. doi:10.1111/j.1651-2227.2011.02414.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    60. ↵
      1. Mathew AC,
      2. Prince TG,
      3. Remees R, et al
      . Prevalence and risk factors of asthma in school going children in South India. Nepal J Epidemiol 2012;2:171–8. doi:10.3126/nje.v2i1.6378
      OpenUrl
      1. Weitzman M,
      2. Gortmaker S,
      3. Sobol A
      . Racial, social, and environmental risks for childhood asthma. Am J Dis Child 1990;144:1189–94.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Seidman DS,
      2. Laor A,
      3. Gale R, et al
      . Is low birth weight a risk factor for asthma during adolescence? Arch Dis Child 1991;66:584–7. doi:10.1136/adc.66.5.584
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      1. Arshad SH,
      2. Stevens M,
      3. Hide DW
      . The effect of genetic and environmental factors on the prevalence of allergic disorders at the age of two years. Clin Exp Allergy 1993;23:504–11. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.1993.tb03238.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Azizi BHO,
      2. Zulkifli HI,
      3. Kasim MS
      . Indoor air pollution and asthma in hospitalized children in a tropical environment. J Asthma 1995;32:413–18. doi:10.3109/02770909409077752
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Lewis S,
      2. Richards D,
      3. Bynner J, et al
      . Prospective study of risk factors for early and persistent wheezing in childhood. Eur Respir J 1995;8:349–56. doi:10.1183/09031936.95.08030349
      OpenUrlAbstract
      1. Lewis S,
      2. Butland B,
      3. Strachan D, et al
      . Study of the aetiology of wheezing illness at age 16 in two national British birth cohorts. Thorax 1996;51:670–6. doi:10.1136/thx.51.7.670
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      1. Schaubel D,
      2. Johansen H,
      3. Dutta M, et al
      . Neonatal characteristics as risk factors for preschool asthma. J Asthma 1996;33:255–64. doi:10.3109/02770909609055366
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Sears MR,
      2. Holdaway MD,
      3. Flannery EM, et al
      . Parental and neonatal risk factors for atopy, airway hyper-responsiveness, and asthma. Arch Dis Child 1996;75:392–8. doi:10.1136/adc.75.5.392
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      1. Lilljeqvist AC,
      2. Faleide AO,
      3. Watten RG
      . Low birthweight, environmental tobacco smoke, and air pollution: risk factors for childhood asthma? Pediatr Allergy Immunol 1997;11:95–102. doi:10.1089/pai.1997.11.95
      OpenUrlCrossRef
      1. Slezak JA,
      2. Persky VW,
      3. Kviz FJ, et al
      . Asthma prevalence and risk factors in selected Head Start sites in Chicago. J Asthma 1998;35:203–12. doi:10.3109/02770909809068208
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Wjst M,
      2. Popescu M,
      3. Trepka MJ, et al
      . Pulmonary function in children with initial low birth weight. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 1998;9:80–90. doi:10.1111/j.1399-3038.1998.tb00308.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Brooks AM,
      2. Byrd RS,
      3. Weitzman M, et al
      . Impact of low birth weight on early childhood asthma in the United States. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2001;155:401–6. doi:10.1001/archpedi.155.3.401
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Ronmark E,
      2. Perzanowski M,
      3. Platts-Mills T, et al
      . Incidence rates and risk factors for asthma among school children: a 2-year follow-up report from the obstructive lung disease in Northern Sweden (OLIN) studies. Respir Med 2002;96:1006–13. doi:10.1053/rmed.2002.1391
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Anand D,
      2. Stevenson CJ,
      3. West CR, et al
      . Lung function and respiratory health in adolescents of very low birth weight. Arch Dis Child 2003;88:135–8. doi:10.1136/adc.88.2.135
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      1. Benicio MHDA,
      2. Ferreira MU,
      3. Cardoso MRA, et al
      . Wheezing conditions in early childhood: prevalence and risk factors in the city of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Bull World Health Organ 2004;82:516–22.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Al-Kubaisy W,
      2. Ali SH,
      3. Al-Thamiri D
      . Risk factors for asthma among primary school children in Baghdad, Iraq. Saudi Med J 2005;26:460–6.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Bernsen RMD,
      2. De Jongste JC,
      3. Koes BW, et al
      . Perinatal characteristics and obstetric complications as risk factors for asthma, allergy and eczema at the age of 6 years. Clin Exp Allergy 2005;35:1135–40. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2005.2155.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Nepomnyaschy L,
      2. Reichman NE
      . Low birthweight and asthma among young urban children. [Erratum appears in Am J Public Health 2006;96:1723]. Am J Public Health 2006;96:1604–10. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.079400
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Kiechl-Kohlendorfer U,
      2. Horak E,
      3. Mueller W, et al
      . Neonatal characteristics and risk of atopic asthma in schoolchildren: results from a large prospective birth-cohort study. Acta Paediatrica 2007;96:1606–10. doi:10.1111/j.1651-2227.2007.00449.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Ortqvist AK,
      2. Lundholm C,
      3. Carlstrom E, et al
      . Familial factors do not confound the association between birth weight and childhood asthma. Pediatrics 2009;124:e737–43. doi:10.1542/peds.2009-0305
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    81. ↵
      1. Xu X,
      2. Dailey AB,
      3. Freeman NC, et al
      . The effects of birthweight and breastfeeding on asthma among children aged 1–5 years: ORIGINAL ARTICLE. J Paediatr Child Health 2009;45:646–51. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1754.2009.01588.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Midodzi WK,
      2. Rowe BH,
      3. Majaesic CM, et al
      . Early life factors associated with incidence of physician-diagnosed asthma in preschool children: results from the Canadian Early Childhood Development cohort study. J Asthma 2010;47:7–13. doi:10.3109/02770900903380996
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Bjerg A,
      2. Hedman L,
      3. Perzanowski M, et al
      . A strong synergism of low birth weight and prenatal smoking on asthma in schoolchildren. Pediatrics 2011;127:e905–12. doi:10.1542/peds.2010-2850
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      1. Mogensen N,
      2. Larsson H,
      3. Lundholm C, et al
      . Association between childhood asthma and ADHD symptoms in adolescence—a prospective population-based twin study. Allergy 2011;66:1224–30. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2011.02648.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Suglia SF,
      2. Chambers EC,
      3. Rosario A, et al
      . Asthma and obesity in three-year-old urban children: role of sex and home environment. J Pediatr 2011;159:14–20.e1. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2011.01.049
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    86. ↵
      1. Sterne JA,
      2. Habord RM
      . Funnel Plots in meta-analysis. Stata J 2004;4:127–41.
      OpenUrl
    87. ↵
      World Health Organizations (WHO) and United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF). Low birthweight: country, regional and global estimates. New York: UNICEF and WHO, 2004: ISBN: 92–806–3832–7.
    88. ↵
      1. Bateman ED,
      2. Hurd SS,
      3. Barnes PJ, et al
      . Global strategy for asthma management and prevention: GINA executive summary. Eur Respir J 2008;31:143–78. doi:10.1183/09031936.00138707
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    89. ↵
      1. Rücker G,
      2. Schwarzer G,
      3. Carpenter JR, et al
      . Undue reliance on I2 in assessing heterogeneity may mislead. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008;8:79. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-79
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

      Files in this Data Supplement:

    Footnotes

    • Contributors TFM, RGF and RCP conceived the idea. TFM performed the literature search. TFM, RGF and RCP contributed to study design, literature search, data extraction and study selection. TFM performed all the statistical analyses, interpretation of results and drafted the manuscript. DCG provided advice on statistical analyses and interpretation of results. DCG, RGF, RCP revised and commented on the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

    • Funding TFM is funded by the Hall Dorman Research PhD Studentship.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.