Suppr超能文献

用于过敏性疾病一级预防的欧米伽3和6脂肪酸油类:系统评价与荟萃分析。

Omega 3 and 6 oils for primary prevention of allergic disease: systematic review and meta-analysis.

作者信息

Anandan C, Nurmatov U, Sheikh A

机构信息

Allergy & Respiratory Research Group, Centre for Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

出版信息

Allergy. 2009 Jun;64(6):840-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2009.02042.x. Epub 2009 Apr 7.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

There is conflicting evidence on the use of omega 3 and omega 6 supplementation for the prevention of allergic diseases. We conducted a systematic review evaluating the effectiveness of omega 3 and 6 oils for the primary prevention of sensitization and development of allergic disorders.

METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, PsycInfo, AMED, ISI Web of Science and Google Scholar for double-blind randomized controlled trials. Two authors independently assessed articles for inclusion. Meta-analyses were undertaken using fixed effects modelling, or random effects modelling in the event of detecting significant heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Of the 3129 articles identified, 10 reports (representing six unique studies) satisfied the inclusion criteria. Four studies compared omega 3 supplements with placebo and two studies compared omega 6 supplements with placebo. There was no clear evidence of benefit in relation to reduced risk of allergic sensitization or a favourable immunological profile. Meta-analyses failed to identify any consistent or clear benefits associated with use of omega 3 [atopic eczema: RR = 1.10 (95% CI 0.78-1.54); asthma: RR = 0.81 (95% CI 0.53-1.25); allergic rhinitis: RR = 0.80 (95% CI 0.34-1.89) or food allergy RR = 0.51 (95% CI 0.10-2.55)] or omega 6 oils [atopic eczema: RR = 0.80 (95% CI 0.56-1.16)] for the prevention of clinical disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to the evidence from basic science and epidemiological studies, our systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that supplementation with omega 3 and omega 6 oils is probably unlikely to play an important role as a strategy for the primary prevention of sensitization or allergic disease.

摘要

背景

关于使用ω-3和ω-6补充剂预防过敏性疾病,证据存在冲突。我们进行了一项系统评价,评估ω-3和ω-6油对致敏和过敏性疾病发生的一级预防效果。

方法

我们检索了Cochrane对照试验中心注册库、MEDLINE、EMBASE、LILACS、PsycInfo、AMED、ISI科学网和谷歌学术,查找双盲随机对照试验。两位作者独立评估纳入的文章。采用固定效应模型进行荟萃分析,若检测到显著异质性则采用随机效应模型。

结果

在识别出的3129篇文章中,10篇报告(代表6项独立研究)符合纳入标准。4项研究比较了ω-3补充剂与安慰剂,2项研究比较了ω-6补充剂与安慰剂。没有明确证据表明其在降低过敏致敏风险或改善免疫特征方面有好处。荟萃分析未能发现与使用ω-3[特应性皮炎:RR = 1.10(95%CI 0.78 - 1.54);哮喘:RR = 0.81(95%CI 0.53 - 1.25);过敏性鼻炎:RR = 0.80(95%CI 0.34 - 1.89)或食物过敏RR = 0.51(95%CI 0.10 - 2.55)]或ω-6油[特应性皮炎:RR = 0.80(95%CI 0.56 - 1.16)]预防临床疾病相关的任何一致或明确的益处。

结论

与基础科学和流行病学研究的证据相反,我们的系统评价和荟萃分析表明,补充ω-3和ω-6油作为致敏或过敏性疾病一级预防策略可能不太可能发挥重要作用。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验