Table 7.
Quantitative associations with lipid outcomes, arranged by exposure type and listed in order of lowest to highest risk of bias.
| Exposure | Article (Study Wave) 1 |
Main Findings (Quantitative Measure [95% CI]) 2 | Bias 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Individual Characteristics | |||
| Sex | Riley 2021 (SEARCH W2) | Female (vs. male) associated with ↑ low HDL-c (aPR 1.54 [0.97, 2.47])—not statistically significant |
M |
| Sjöholm 2018 (ABC W4) | No association between sex and ideal TotChol | M | |
| Obesity measures | Gialamas 2018 (ABC W2-3) |
Among males, ↑ zBMI at W2 associated with ↑ TotChol at W3 (β 0.12 mmol/L [0.05, 0.19]), LDL-c at W3 (β 0.09 [0.03, 0.15]) ↑ zBMI at W3 associated with ↑ TotChol at W3 (males only, β 0.12 [0.05, 0.19]), ↓ HDL-c (females only, β −0.04 [−0.05, −0.02]) |
L |
| Sayers 2009 (ABC W2) | ↑ weight (1 kg) at W2 associated with ↑ TotChol § (β 0.0021 [0.00033, 0.0039]), fasting TG § (β 0.0065 [0.00046, 0.012]) |
M | |
| Sevoyan 2019 (ABC W4) ^ | ↑ BMI category associated with ↑ elevated TG (p < 0.001 trend), low HDL-c (females p <0.05 trend, males p = 0.17 trend) |
H | |
| Riley 2021 (SEARCH W2) |
Obesity (vs. normal) associated with ↑ elevated TotChol (aPR 1.28 [1.06, 1.54]), low HDL-c (aPR 2.00 [1.19, 3.35]), elevated LDL-c (aPR 1.14 [0.96, 1.35]) |
H | |
| Valery 2009 | Overweight/obese (vs. normal) associated with ↑ low HDL-c (63% vs. 41%, p = 0.049), elevated TG (20 vs. 7%, p = 0.134) |
H | |
| Smith 1992 * | ↑ BMI (1 kg/m2) associated with ↑ TotChol (males β 0.062 ± SE 0.032 mmol/L, females β 0.053 ± SE 0.015) |
H | |
| Birth size | Sjöholm 2021 (ABC W2-4) | At W2 only, ↑ birth weight category (SGA, AGA, LGA) associated with ↑ TG (1.09, 1.20, 1.50 mmol/L) Associations did not persist after adjusting for current BMI, indicating potential mediation |
M |
| Sayers 2009 (ABC W2) | No association between birth weight and lipids (TotChol, HDL-c, LDL-c, TG), before or after adjusting for current weight |
M | |
| Maternal obesity | Sjöholm 2018 (ABC W4) | Obese mother (vs. normal) associated with ↓ odds of ideal TotChol (aOR 0.13 [0.03, 0.58]) |
M |
| Environmental Factors | |||
| Area-level SES | Juonala 2019 (ABC W2-4) | Across W2-4, ↑ area-level disadvantage at birth associated with ↓ HDL-c (p < 0.001 trend) Across W3-4, ↑ area-level disadvantage at birth associated with ↓ LDL-c (p = 0.010 trend) |
M |
| Sjöholm 2018 (ABC W4) | No association between area-level SES at birth and ideal TotChol | M | |
| Remoteness | Mackerras 2003 (ABC W2) | Urban (vs. remote) associated with ↑ TotChol (4.3 vs. 4.0 mmol/L, p < 0.001), HDL-c (1.4 vs. 1.2 mmol/L, P <0.001) |
M |
| Juonala 2019 (ABC W2-4) | Across W3-4, urban (vs. remote) at birth associated with ↑ HDL-c (p < 0.001 trend), ↓ TG (p = 0.043 trend) |
M | |
| Sjöholm 2018 (ABC W4) | No association between remoteness at birth and ideal TotChol | M | |
1: ^ non-disaggregated data (majority Indigenous); * non-disaggregated data (majority aged <25 years); ABC = Aboriginal Birth Cohort; SEARCH = Study of Environment on Aboriginal Resilience and Child Health; W2 = follow-up wave 2. 2: ↑ = higher; ↓ = lower; β = linear regression coefficient; § = outcome measure log-transformed; aPR = adjusted prevalence ratio; BMI = body mass index; HDL-c = high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL-c = low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; SE = standard error; TG = triglycerides; TotChol = total cholesterol; zBMI = BMI z-score. 3: Risk of bias: H = high; M = moderate; L = low.