You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Original article
Environmental tobacco smoke and fetal health: systematic review and meta-analysis
  1. J Leonardi-Bee1,
  2. A Smyth2,
  3. J Britton1,
  4. T Coleman3
  1. 1
    Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
  2. 2
    Division of Child Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
  3. 3
    Division of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, University Hospital, Queen’s Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK
  1. Dr J Leonardi-Bee, Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Clinical Sciences Building, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK; jo.leonardi-bee{at}nottingham.ac.uk

Abstract

Objective: To determine the effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure on birth outcomes.

Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in accordance with MOOSE guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and LILACS (up to October 2007), were searched and also reviews and reference lists from publications, with no language restrictions. Pooled mean differences and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals were estimated using data extracted from papers, based on random effect models.

Setting: Comparative epidemiological studies.

Patients: Pregnant women or women who have given birth.

Exposures: Maternal exposure to ETS during pregnancy.

Main outcome measures: Mean birth weight and proportion of premature infants.

Results: 58 studies were included; 53 used cohort designs, 23 ascertaining ETS exposure prospectively and 30 retrospectively; 5 used case–control designs. In prospective studies, ETS exposure was associated with a 33 g (95% CI 16 to 51) reduction in mean birth weight, and in retrospective studies a 40 g (95% CI 26 to 54) reduction. ETS exposure was also associated with an increased risk of low birth weight (birth weight <2500 g; prospective studies: OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.63; retrospective studies: OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.37). The risk of small for gestational age (<10th centile) birth was significantly associated with ETS exposure only in retrospective studies (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.37). There was no effect of ETS exposure on gestational age.

Conclusions: Exposure of non-smoking pregnant women to ETS reduces mean birth weight by 33 g or more, and increases the risk of birth weight below 2500 g by 22%, but has no clear effect on gestation or the risk of being small for gestational age.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/adc.2007.133553

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.

    The public health impact of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure is currently an important issue for policy makers and clinicians. This is because ETS exposure has a clinically important and detrimental impact on adult and child health.1–4 However, the effects of maternal ETS exposure on the unborn fetus remain less clearly defined. Since active maternal smoking during pregnancy impairs fetal growth5–8 and shortens gestation,9 with important consequences for fetal and infant mortality and morbidity, it is likely that maternal ETS exposure during pregnancy has similar, if less marked, adverse effects.

    Two previous systematic reviews of the effects of maternal ETS exposure during pregnancy on birth outcomes10 11 found evidence of a small reduction in mean birth weight, and an increased pooled risk of babies being small for gestational age (SGA) or low birth weight (LBW, birth weight <2500 g) at term, but no significant association with either SGA or LBW at term assessed individually. The conclusions of one of these reviews11 were also endorsed by the US Surgeon General’s report, published in 2006,12 which concluded that at the time of writing an updated meta-analysis was not warranted.12 However, both reviews are several years old, including papers published only up to 199511 and 1998,10 and identified using relatively restrictive inclusion criteria with search strategies limited to only one10 or two11 electronic databases. It is therefore likely that the total available evidence base has increased substantially since these analyses were reported.

    We therefore now report a new systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence available to 2007 to quantify the impact of maternal ETS exposure during pregnancy on a range of birth outcomes including birth weight, prematurity, LBW and SGA.

    METHODS

    Methods of the systematic review

    Comparative epidemiological studies of the effect of ETS exposure on non-smoking, pregnant women were included in the review. Randomised controlled trials of smoking cessation in either parent were excluded. ETS exposure included any record of maternal contact with environmental tobacco smoke from domestic, occupational or other sources.

    Outcome measures

    Primary outcome measures were mean birth weight, mean gestation period and proportion of premature infants. Secondary outcome measures were proportions of infants categorised as LBW or SGA at term.

    Search strategy

    We used the Centre for Dissemination and Reviews guidelines13 to search Ovid MEDLINE (from 1966 to October 2007), Ovid OLDMEDLINE (from 1950 to October 2007), Ovid EMBASE (from 1980 to October 2007), CINAHL (from 1982 to October 2007), LILACS (from 1982 to October 2007) and CAB Abstracts (from 2000 to October 2007). The following five terms were used as keywords to locate studies, where $ indicates truncation: environ$, tobacco, smok$, ETS, cigarette. Explosions of the following MeSH terms were also used: tobacco smoke pollution, gestational age, newborn infant, premature infant, fetal death, birthweight, low birthweight infant, fetal growth retardation, and small-for-gestational-age infant. Hand searching of references was also performed. No language restrictions were imposed and translations were sought where necessary.

    Study selection

    Titles identified from searches were checked for eligibility by one author (JL-B) and abstracts of potentially eligible studies (as judged by titles) were checked for eligibility by three authors (TC, AS, JB). The full text of studies regarded as potentially eligible were obtained and assessed independently by two authors to decide whether the studies met the inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. For included studies, two authors independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality using the Newcastle–Ottawa quality assessment scale14 based on the following: (a) selection of cases and controls, or cohort; (b) comparability of cases and controls, or cohort; and (c) ascertainment of exposure/outcome.

    Statistical methods for the meta-analysis

    Tabulated data, crude estimates or adjusted estimates were extracted from the included studies and we wrote to authors of studies published in the past 10 years for further information or data, where necessary. Data are reported using mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes or odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals. Separate pooled analyses were conducted for case–control, prospective cohort and retrospective studies. For each meta-analysis, data were pooled using random effect models15 to allow for heterogeneity between studies. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2.16 We compared the impact of maternal ETS exposure during pregnancy with no maternal tobacco smoke exposure on primary birth outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by excluding studies with poor levels of methodological quality (<6 on the Newcastle–Ottawa scale). Data were analysed using the software program Review Manager 4.3 (RevMan, Version 4.3 for Windows, Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, 2005). Probability values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant. The work was carried out in accordance with the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines.17

    RESULTS

    Overview of the included studies

    We found 207 studies with titles which suggested that they were potentially eligible for inclusion (fig 1). After scrutinising the abstracts of these studies, 71 were deemed potentially eligible and of these 58 remained in the review after their full text was considered (table 1). The reasons for exclusion of the 13 potentially eligible studies are presented in the appendix.

    Figure 1
    Figure 1 Flow chart for inclusion exclusion of studies.
    View this table:
    Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies

    In the 58 included studies, ETS exposure was collected by self-report questionnaire in 46 studies,11 19–29 31–33 35 37 39–43 46–51 53–55 57–60 63 65–68 69–74 and biochemically in three studies using serum cotinine33 75 or nicotine levels in the hair.56 The remaining 10 studies used both self-report and biochemical markers.18 30 36 38 44 45 52 61 62 64 ETS was assessed either as domestic exposure (29 studies) or as domestic and occupational exposure (20 studies). The remaining studies assessed any ETS exposure (8 studies) (table 1).

    In 23/58 studies, ETS exposure was assessed using prospective cohorts where the data were collected within the first or second trimester of pregnancy,19 20 28 34 36 37 44 50 55 66 71 at a single exposure point during the three trimesters43 47 54 61 72 73 or only in the final trimester.22 42 60 62 64 69 Thirty studies used retrospective ascertainment of ETS exposure, recorded usually within a month following birth.11 18 23 24 27 29 30 32 33 35 38–41 45 46 48 49 51–53 57–59 63 65 67 68 70 74 The remaining five studies used a case–control design in which cases were SGA25 26 56 or preterm infants31 or babies with congenital malformations.21 Nine studies included only full-term babies with gestational age ⩾37 weeks.19 25 37 40 46 47 59 65 74 Two studies included only babies with birth weights ⩾2000 g,40 46 and two studies only included babies who were >500 g.32 44

    Methodological quality of the studies

    The methodological quality of the 58 included studies is presented in table 1. Two translated studies could not be assessed due to lack of information.43 67 The median quality score was 6 (range 2–9), indicating that the overall methodological quality was generally good. Using the a priori chosen threshold of 6, we judged 37 (63%) studies to be of high methodological quality. The quality of other studies was lower primarily because they had used retrospective ascertainment of ETS exposure, contained unclear information on the adequacy of follow up of the cohort, or did not adjust analyses for confounding variables.

    Effects of ETS on mean birth weight

    Forty-four of the 48 studies that reported birth weight as an outcome had data available for meta-analysis (figs 2 and 3). The remaining four studies either reported no standard error,22 27 inconsistent standard deviations45 or presented log-transformed outcomes.62

    Figure 2
    Figure 2 Mean birth weight (BW) using prospective studies.
    Figure 3
    Figure 3 Mean birth weight (BW) using retrospective studies.

    Seventeen of the 44 studies ascertained ETS exposure prospectively. The pooled results for these studies found that ETS exposure was significantly associated with a 33 g (95% CI 15.7 to 51.3) reduction in birth weight (fig 2). Moderate levels of heterogeneity were found between the study estimates (pooled I2 = 34%). Studies reporting adjusted birth weight showed greater reductions in birth weight associated with ETS exposure than crude estimates. The remaining studies all ascertained ETS exposure retrospectively. The pooled result for these studies was larger in magnitude compared with the results from the prospective studies (40 g reduction, 95% CI 25.8 to 54.4; fig 3) with moderate levels of heterogeneity (pooled I2 = 39%).

    Results from a sensitivity analysis restricted to studies of high methodological quality (⩾6 on the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale) were similar, with the overall pooled mean reduction in birth weight associated with ETS exposure for the 14 high-quality prospective studies being 30 g (95% CI 12.9 to 46.2, pooled I2 = 28%) and 41 g (95% CI 21.1 to 60.6, pooled I2 = 46%) in the 16 high-quality retrospective studies.

    Four studies also presented gestation-corrected birth weight either using birthweight z (SD) scores,70 a birth weight ratio22 61 or adjusted birth weight per centile.52 However, there were no differences between the ETS exposed and non-exposed groups in either birth weight z score (p = 0.18), birth weight ratio (p = 0.5622; p = 0.9661) or adjusted birth weight per centile (p = 0.36).

    Effects of ETS on the risk of prematurity

    Prematurity was assessed using mean gestation period (in weeks) in 11 studies. No significant associations were seen between ETS exposure and mean gestation period in either prospective studies or retrospective studies (MD −0.04 weeks, 95% CI −0.22 to 0.13, 5 studies; MD −0.03 weeks, 95% CI −0.28 to 0.22 weeks, 6 studies, respectively). High levels of heterogeneity were seen between the prospective (I2 = 65%) and retrospective studies (I2 = 76%).

    A further 19 studies assessed prematurity using the proportion of premature births (<37 weeks). One of these was not included in the analyses because the risk of prematurity for passive smokers was adjusted for active smoking in the analysis.28 A significant 18% increase in the risk of prematurity with ETS exposure was seen in the retrospective studies (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.35; 9 studies), however, the effect was not statistically significant in the pooled analysis of prospective studies (p = 0.24; 8 studies) or in the case–control study (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.31).31

    Effects of ETS on the risk of LBW (birth weight <2500 g)

    Twenty-six of the 28 studies which measured LBW as an outcome had data available for meta-analysis. Two studies were excluded because they did not present a measure of variance34 or presented results which adjusted for active smokers in the analysis.28 All of the 26 studies defined LBW as <2500 grams, except one study which used the definition of <2000 grams.53

    In a pooled analysis of prospective studies, exposure to ETS was found to be significantly associated with an increased risk of having a LBW birth (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.63; 9 studies; I2 = 55%; fig 4). Similar results were seen from the pooled analysis of retrospective studies (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.37; 17 studies; I2 = 0%; fig 4). Six studies only analysed data from full-term babies (⩾37 weeks’ gestation) and excluding these (which is appropriate for consideration of the impact of ETS on LBW) slightly increased the risk of LBW (prospective studies: OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.62; 7 studies; retrospective studies: OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.50; 13 studies).

    Figure 4
    Figure 4 Low birth weight (LBW) using prospective cohort and retrospective studies.

    Effects of ETS on the risk of SGA

    Twenty studies measured SGA as an outcome. Eighteen of these defined SGA as being below the <10th centile, the others as either being more than 1.5 standard deviations below the mean on the Japanese standard fetal growth curve54 or more than 2 standard deviations below the age-related mean.28 In a pooled analysis of nine retrospectively ascertained studies, exposure to ETS was found to be significantly associated with a 21% increase in the risk of having a SGA baby (95% CI 1.06 to 1.37; I2 = 0%; fig 5). However, the pooled result from the eight prospective studies was not statistically significant (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.28; I2 = 45%; fig 5). The three remaining studies of SGA used case–control designs.25 26 56 The pooled results from these studies found no evidence of an association between ETS exposure and SGA (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.61; 3 studies, I2 = 0).

    Figure 5
    Figure 5 Small for gestational age (SGA) using prospective cohort and retrospective studies.

    DISCUSSION

    What is already known on this topic

    • Previous reviews have found small reductions in mean birth weight associated with maternal exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS).

    • The available evidence base has increased substantially since these reviews, such that the clinical implications of this impact can now be more clearly defined.

    What this study adds

    • Exposure of non-smoking pregnant women to ETS reduces mean birth weight by 33 g or more, which is higher than previously reported; and increases the risk of higher morbidity, low birthweight births (<2500 g) by 22%.

    • These effects appear to be independent of any association between reduced length of gestation and maternal ETS exposure.

    The main findings of this systematic review are that maternal ETS exposure during pregnancy is significantly associated with a mean reduction in birth weight of 33 g or greater and an approximately 22% or greater increase in the risk of LBW (<2500 g). However, ETS exposure did not appear to consistently alter the risk of SGA birth, and had little if any effect on the duration of gestation. Generally, low levels of heterogeneity were seen between the studies, indicating that the effect of ETS was similar irrespective of the source of ETS exposure. We have not attempted to distinguish the effects of ETS exposure at different stages of pregnancy.

    Our findings suggest that the impact of ETS exposure on mean birth weight is between 25% and 40% higher than previous estimates, including that in the recent US Surgeon General’s Report on the health consequences of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke.3 This is probably because our review includes 30 more studies published since the meta-analyses10 11 used as the basis of the Surgeon General’s report.12 Previous reviews reported a 20% increase in the combined outcome of LBW at term and SGA, but did not find consistently significant effects on these outcomes separately. We separated LBW at term and SGA, and found a significant 22–32% increase in LBW, but no consistent effect on SGA. Also, the increased risk of LBW in our analysis was still significantly apparent when we excluded studies which only assessed LBW in term babies. This present review is, to our knowledge, the first to quantify the effects on these separate outcomes.

    Our findings for birth weight are based on data from 44 studies, whereas previous estimates were based on only 11 studies.11 Previous reviews may have been biased by their search strategies that were limited to one10 or two11 databases, and in one case by excluding foreign language papers unless an English translation was available.11 Our findings are more likely to be representative estimates of the true effects because they are based on results of a comprehensive search with no language restrictions, including data identified through hand searching of reference lists and previous reviews, and because we included studies in the meta-analysis that the previous systematic reviews did not, by successfully contacting authors who provided more information or data relating to their studies.

    Our finding that ETS exposure was not consistently significantly associated with the risk of prematurity is in agreement with the findings of the Surgeon General’s report.3 Again our finding is based on rather more data (19 studies vs 8 in the Surgeon General’s report), but active maternal smoking is known to increase the risk of prematurity by over 27%76 and as we found the proportion of premature babies was significantly higher in retrospective studies, further research into this potential effect of ETS would be helpful.

    To assess the effect of methodological quality, we performed a sensitivity analysis which was restricted to high-quality studies, but the findings were similar to the overall analysis. We were inevitably limited in the range of confounding variables we could adjust for, and although we were able to correct for the effect of maternal age on birth weight,77 we could not adjust for socioeconomic status78 or ethnicity.79 We were also not always able to adjust mean birth weight for gestation in our analyses, so it is possible that the observed effect of ETS exposure on mean birth weight arises from more ETS-exposed babies being delivered earlier.10 However, consistent results were seen between the gestation-adjusted and gestation-unadjusted analyses, therefore the effect of ETS exposure on birth weight is likely to be real. Most studies used non-validated, self-reported measures to ascertain maternal ETS exposure, which could result in an underestimate of ETS exposure due to either a lack of awareness of maternal exposure or an unwillingness to declare exposure, and thus could results in biased reports. Biochemical markers of ETS exposure, such as cord serum or urinary cotinine, yield validated measures; however, ETS exposure earlier in pregnancy, which is pertinent to fetal outcomes, could be underestimated by such methods. Where individual studies reported both self-reported and biochemically validated exposures, no differences in outcomes were reported which suggests that it is reasonable to use self-report outcomes and our findings are likely to be valid.

    A recent systematic review of active smoking studies found a 200 g reduction in birth weight.12 Since ETS exposure is typically equivalent to about 1% of the exposure from active maternal smoking,4 our estimate of 33–40 g reduction in birth weight equates to an effect of 17–20% of that of active smoking. This is consistent with findings from animal studies which suggest that sidestream smoke (the primary component of ETS) is more harmful than mainstream smoke (inhaled during active maternal smoking).80 Tobacco smoke contains many toxins81 and maternal exposure to these is thought to exert adverse fetal effects through a variety of mechanisms,82 which may therefore be disproportionately worse following ETS exposure than after active maternal smoking, potentially because ETS contains fetal toxins in greater concentrations.

    Several mechanisms have been suggested to describe why active maternal smoking impacts on fetal birth weight.83 The adverse effects of maternal smoking may be due to the toxic effects of nicotine or other constituents, such as carbon monoxide, by affecting growth through impairing fetal metabolism of leptin84 or possibly by nicotine impairing nutrient and energy delivery to the fetus by suppressing appetite and inhibiting body weight gain in the mother.83 However, as we found that ETS reduces birth weight, but has no impact on the risk of prematurity, this is consistent with one or more constituent(s) of ETS (eg, nicotine or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) exerting a direct effect on fetal growth. Nicotine may do this by constricting utero-placental arteries, reducing blood flow and thus oxygen delivery to the fetus85 and other toxins may operate by different, as yet unidentified, mechanisms.

    Our study thus provides new estimates of the effect of ETS on mean birth weight and the risk of LBW, the former of which is higher than previous figures and the latter demonstrated to be independent of SGA for the first time. LBW is associated with an increased risk of infant mortality,86 developmental problems such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder87 and reduced IQ scores in childhood.88 There is also growing evidence that the adverse effects of LBW can extend throughout the lifespan by increasing the risks of chronic disease in later life.89 90 Therefore, the public health consequences of maternal ETS exposure are likely to be extensive and through effective tobacco control measures are potentially entirely avoidable.

    Acknowledgments

    The authors would like to thank the students at the University of Nottingham (J Chen, Y Nakanomori, G Marinov), M Pujades and K Szpakowska for their help with the translations of the non-English papers; and R Adamek, F Perera, F Matsubara, and W Hanke for providing us with further information or data relating to their studies.

    Appendix

    View this table:
    Table AI Excluded studies

    REFERENCES

    1. ↵
      Tobacco Advisory Group of the Royal College of Physicians. Going smoke-free: the case for clean air in the home, at work and in public places. London: Royal College of Physicians, 2005.
    2. ↵
      1. Edwards R,
      2. Coleman T
      . Going smoke-free: the medical case for clean air in the home, at work and in public places. Clin Med 2005;5:548–50.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    3. ↵
      US Department of Health and Human Services. Chapter 5. Reproductive developmental effects from exposure to secondhand smoke. In: The health consequence of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke. A report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006.
    4. ↵
      Royal College of Physicians. Smoking and the young. London: Royal College of Physicians, 1992.
    5. ↵
      1. Robinson JS,
      2. Moore VM,
      3. Owens JA,
      4. et al
      . Origins of fetal growth restriction. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2000;92:13–19.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Kramer MS
      . Determinants of low birth weight: methodological assessment and meta-analysis. Bull World Health Organ 1987;65:663–737.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    7. US Department of Health and Human Services. Women and smoking: a report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2001.
    8. ↵
      Tobacco Advisory Group of the Royal College of Physicians. Nicotine addiction in Britain. London: Royal College of Physicians, 2000.
    9. ↵
      1. Nabet C,
      2. Ancel PY,
      3. Burguet A,
      4. et al
      . Smoking during pregnancy and preterm birth according to obstetric history: French national perinatal surveys. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2005;19:88–96.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    10. ↵
      1. Misra DP,
      2. Nguyen RHN
      . Environmental tobacco smoke and low birth weight: A hazard in the workplace? Environ Health Perspect 1999;107:897–904.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    11. ↵
      1. Windham GC,
      2. Eaton A,
      3. Hopkins B
      . Evidence for an association between environmental tobacco smoke exposure and birthweight: a metaanalysis and new data. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 1999;13:35–57.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    12. ↵
      US Department of Health and Human Services. Chapter 5: Reproductive effects. In: The health consequences of smoking. A report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2004.
    13. ↵
      1. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination
      NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD’s guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. In: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, ed. CRD Report Number 4. York: University of York, 2001 http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/report4.htm (accessed March 2005).
    14. ↵
      1. Wells G,
      2. Shea B,
      3. O’Connell D,
      4. et al
      . Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of non randomised studies in meta-analysishttp://www.ohsi.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm (accessed March 2005).
    15. ↵
      1. DerSimonian R,
      2. Laird N
      . Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986;7:177–88.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    16. ↵
      1. Higgins JPT,
      2. Thompson SG
      . Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002;21:1539–58.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    17. ↵
      1. Stroup DF,
      2. Berlin JA,
      3. Morton SC,
      4. et al.,
      5. Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group
      . Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology. A proposal for reporting. JAMA 2000;283:2008–12.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    18. ↵
      1. Adamek R,
      2. Florek E,
      3. Piekoszowski W,
      4. et al
      . [The socio-economic status of women smoking during pregnancy and birth weight of their newborns] [Article in Polish]. Przegl Lek 2004;61:1006–11.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    19. ↵
      1. Ahlborg G,
      2. Bodin L
      . Tobacco-smoke exposure and pregnancy outcome among working women—a prospective-study at prenatal-care centers in Orebro County, Sweden. Am J Epidemiol 1991;133:338–47.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    20. ↵
      1. Ahluwalia IB,
      2. GrummerStrawn L,
      3. Scanlon KS
      . Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and birth outcome: increased effects on pregnant women aged 30 years or older. Am J Epidemiol 1997;146:42–7.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    21. ↵
      1. Borlee I,
      2. Bouckaert A,
      3. Lechat MF,
      4. et al
      . Smoking patterns during and before pregnancy—weight, length and head circumference of progeny. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1978;8:171–7.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    22. ↵
      1. Brooke OG,
      2. Anderson HR,
      3. Bland JM,
      4. et al
      . Effects on birth-weight of smoking, alcohol, caffeine, socioeconomic-factors, and psychosocial stress. BMJ 1989;298:795–801.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    23. ↵
      1. Campbell MJ,
      2. Lewry J,
      3. Wailoo M
      . Further evidence for the effect of passive smoking on neonates. Postgrad Med J 1988;64:663–5.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    24. ↵
      1. Chen Y,
      2. Pederson LL,
      3. Lefcoe NM
      . Passive smoking and low-birth-weight. Lancet 1989;2:54–5.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    25. ↵
      1. Chen LH,
      2. Petitti DB
      . Case–control study of passive smoking and the risk of small-for-gestational-age at term. Am J Epidemiol 1995;142:158–65.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    26. ↵
      1. Ciesla B,
      2. Hanke W,
      3. Grodzicka A,
      4. et al
      . [Use of prenatal health care and risk of infants born small-for-gestational-age. Preliminary results of a case–control study in the Lodz voivodeship] [Article in Polish]. Przegl Epidemiol 2004;58:537–46.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    27. ↵
      1. Comstock GW,
      2. Lundin FE
      . Parental smoking and perinatal mortality. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1967;;98:708–&.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    28. ↵
      1. Dejin-Karlsson E,
      2. Hanson BS,
      3. Ostergren PO,
      4. et al
      . Does passive smoking in early pregnancy increase the risk of small-for-gestational-age infants? Am J Public Health 1998;88:1523–7.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    29. ↵
      1. Dejmek J,
      2. Solansky I,
      3. Podrazilova K,
      4. et al
      . The exposure of nonsmoking and smoking mothers to environmental tobacco smoke during different gestational phases and fetal growth. Environ Health Perspect 2002;110:601–6.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    30. ↵
      1. Drozdz M,
      2. Strzelczak Z,
      3. Jendryczko A
      . [Smoking and passive smoking during pregnancy and after labor: their effects on birth weight, duration of lactation and cotinine level in mother’s milk and its urinary excretion by the infant] [Article in Polish]. Ginekol Pol 1988;59:528–33.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    31. ↵
      1. Fantuzzi G,
      2. Aggazzotti G,
      3. Righi E,
      4. et al
      . Preterm delivery and exposure to active and passive smoking during pregnancy: a Case–control study from Italy. 2007;21:194–200.
    32. ↵
      1. Fortier I,
      2. Marcoux S,
      3. Brisson J
      . Passive smoking during pregnancy and the risk of delivering a small-for-gestational-age infant. Am J Epidemiol 1994;139:294–301.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    33. ↵
      1. Goel P,
      2. Radotra A,
      3. Singh I,
      4. et al
      . Effects of passive smoking on outcome in pregnancy. J Postgrad Med 2004;50:12–6.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    34. ↵
      1. Haddow JE,
      2. Knight GJ,
      3. Palomaki GE,
      4. et al
      . 2nd-trimester serum cotinine levels in nonsmokers in relation to birth-weight. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988;159:481–4.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    35. ↵
      1. Hanke W,
      2. Kalinka J,
      3. Florek E,
      4. et al
      . Passive smoking and pregnancy outcome in central Poland. Hum Exp Toxicol 1999;18:265–71.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    36. ↵
      1. Hanke W,
      2. Sobala W,
      3. Kalinka J
      . Environmental tobacco smoke exposure among pregnant women: impact on fetal biometry at 20–24 weeks of gestation and newborn child’s birth weight. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2004;77:47–52.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    37. ↵
      1. Hegaard HK,
      2. Jkærgaard H,
      3. Møller LF,
      4. et al
      . The effect of environmental tobacco smoke during pregnancy on birth weight. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2006;85:675–81.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    38. ↵
      1. Hong YC,
      2. Lee KH,
      3. Son BK,
      4. et al
      . Effects of the GSTM1 and GSTT1 polymorphisms on the relationship between maternal exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and neonatal birth weight. J Occup Environ Med 2003;45:492–8.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    39. ↵
      1. Hruba D,
      2. Kachlik P
      . Influence of maternal active and passive smoking during pregnancy on birthweight in newborns. Cent Eur J Public Health 2000;8:249–52.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    40. ↵
      1. Janghorbani M
      . Effect of passive smoking during pregnancy on weight, length and cranial circumference at birth in Kerman, Iran. Med J Islam Repub Iran 1998;12:31–6.
      OpenUrl
    41. ↵
      1. Jedrychowski W,
      2. Flak E
      . Confronting the prenatal effects of active and passive tobacco smoking on the birth weight of children. Cent Eur J Public Health 1996;4:201–5.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    42. ↵
      1. Jedrychowski W,
      2. Bendkowska I,
      3. Flak E,
      4. et al
      . Estimated risk for altered fetal growth resulting from exposure to fine particles during pregnancy: an epidemiologic prospective cohort study in Poland. Environ Health Perspect 2004;112:1398–402.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    43. ↵
      1. Karakostov P
      . [Passive smoking among pregnant women and its effect on the weight and growth of the newborn infant] [Article in Bulgarian]. Akush Ginekol 1985;24:28–31.
      OpenUrl
    44. ↵
      1. Kharrazi M,
      2. DeLorenze GN,
      3. Kaufman FL,
      4. et al
      . Environmental tobacco smoke and pregnancy outcome. J Epidemiol 2004;15:660–70.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    45. ↵
      1. Kutlu T,
      2. Gelboin HV,
      3. Gozukara EM
      . Cigarette smoking and secondary smoke in Turkey: Effect on placental aryl hydrocarbon hydroxylase (AHH), infant birth weight, and size. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 2002;69:855–62.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    46. ↵
      1. Lazzaroni F,
      2. Bonassi S,
      3. Manniello E,
      4. et al
      . Effect of passive smoking during pregnancy on selected perinatal parameters. Int J Epidemiol 1990;19:960–6.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    47. ↵
      1. Luciano A,
      2. Bolognani M,
      3. Biondani P,
      4. et al
      . The influence of maternal passive and light active smoking on intrauterine growth and body composition of the newborn. Eur J Clin Nutr 1998;52:760–3.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    48. ↵
      1. MacMahon B,
      2. Alpert M,
      3. Salber EJ
      . Infant weight and parental smoking-habits. Am J Epidemiol 1965;82:247–61.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    49. ↵
      1. Mainous AG III,
      2. Heuston WJ
      . Passive smoke and low birth weight. Evidence of a threshold effect. Arch Fam Med 1994;3:875–8.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    50. ↵
      1. Martin TR,
      2. Bracken MB
      . Association of low birth weight with passive smoke exposure in pregnancy. Am J Epidemiol 1986;124:633–42.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    51. ↵
      1. Martinez FD,
      2. Wright AL,
      3. Taussig LM
      . The effect of paternal smoking on the birth-weight of newborns whose mothers did not smoke. Am J Public Health 1994;84:1489–91.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    52. ↵
      1. Mathai M,
      2. Skinner A,
      3. Lawton K,
      4. et al
      . Maternal smoking, urinary cotinine levels and birth-weight. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1990;30:33–6.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    53. ↵
      1. Mathai M,
      2. Vijayasri R,
      3. Babu S,
      4. et al
      . Passive maternal smoking and birth-weight in a south Indian population. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992;99:342–3.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    54. ↵
      1. Matsubara F,
      2. Kida M,
      3. Tamakoshi A,
      4. et al
      . Maternal active and passive smoking and fetal growth: a prospective study in Nagoya, Japan. J Epidemiol 2000;10:335–43.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    55. ↵
      1. Mau G,
      2. Netter P
      . [The effects of paternal cigarette smoking on perinatal mortality and the incidence of malformations] [Author’s transl] [Article in German]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 1974;99:1113–8.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    56. ↵
      1. Nafstad P,
      2. Fugelseth DL,
      3. Qvigstad E,
      4. et al
      . Nicotine concentration in the hair of nonsmoking mothers and size of offspring. Am J Public Health 1998;88:120–4.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    57. ↵
      1. Nakamura M,
      2. Hiyama T,
      3. Kubota N,
      4. et al
      . [Effect of passive smoking during pregnancy on birth weight and gestation: A population-based prospective study in Japan]. Kosei no Shihyo 1988;35:23–30.
      OpenUrl
    58. ↵
      1. Nakamura MU,
      2. Alexandre SM,
      3. Kuhn dos Santos JF,
      4. et al
      . Obstetric and perinatal effects of active and/or passive smoking during pregnancy. Sao Paulo Med J 2004;122:94–8.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    59. ↵
      1. Ogawa H,
      2. Tominaga S,
      3. Hori K,
      4. et al
      . Passive smoking by pregnant women and fetal growth. J Epidemiol Community Health 1991;45:164–8.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    60. ↵
      1. Pan MM
      . [Influence of passive smoking on the fetus during pregnancy] [Article in Chinese]. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi 1992;27:348–50, 80.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    61. ↵
      1. Peacock JL,
      2. Cook DG,
      3. Carey IM,
      4. et al
      . Maternal cotinine level during pregnancy and birthweight for gestational age. Int J Epidemiol 1998;27:647–56.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    62. ↵
      1. Perera FP,
      2. Rauh V,
      3. Whyatt RM,
      4. et al
      . Molecular evidence of an interaction between prenatal environmental exposures and birth outcomes in a multiethnic population. Environ Health Perspect 2004;112:626–30.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    63. ↵
      1. Rashid M,
      2. Rashid HM
      . Passive maternal smoking and pregnancy outcome in a Saudi population. Saudi Med J 2003;24:248–53.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    64. ↵
      1. Rebagliato M,
      2. Florey CDV,
      3. Bolumar F
      . Exposure to environmental tobacco-smoke in nonsmoking pregnant women in relation to birth-weight. Am J Epidemiol 1995;142:531–7.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    65. ↵
      1. Roquer JM,
      2. Figueras J,
      3. Botet F,
      4. et al
      . Influence on fetal growth of exposure to tobacco-smoke during pregnancy. Acta Paediatr 1995;84:118–21.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    66. ↵
      1. Sadler L,
      2. Belanger K,
      3. Saftlas A,
      4. et al
      . Environmental tobacco smoke exposure and small-for-gestational-age birth. Am J Epidemiol 1999;150:695–705.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    67. ↵
      1. Saito R
      . [The smoking habits of pregnant women and their husbands, and the effect on their infants] [Article in Japanese]. Nippon Koshu Eisei Zasshi 1991;38:124–31.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    68. ↵
      1. Schwartzbickenbach D,
      2. Schultehobein B,
      3. Abt S,
      4. et al
      . Smoking and passive smoking during pregnancy and early infancy—effects on birth-weight, lactation period, and cotinine concentrations in mothers milk and infants urine. Toxicol Lett 1987;35:73–81.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    69. ↵
      1. Steyn K,
      2. de Wet T,
      3. Saloojee Y,
      4. et al
      . The influence of maternal cigarette smoking, snuff use and passive smoking on pregnancy outcomes: the Birth To Ten Study. 2006;20:90–9.
    70. ↵
      1. Ward C,
      2. Lewis S,
      3. Coleman T
      . Prevalence of maternal smoking and environmental tobacco smoke exposure during pregnancy and impact on birth weight: retrospective study using Millennium cohort. BMC Public Health 2007;7:81.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    71. ↵
      1. Windham GC,
      2. Hopkins B,
      3. Fenster L,
      4. et al
      . Prenatal active or passive tobacco smoke exposure and the risk of preterm delivery or low birth weight. J Epidemiol 2000;11:427–33.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    72. ↵
      1. Wu T,
      2. Hu Y,
      3. Chen C,
      4. et al
      . Passive smoking, metabolic gene polymorphisms, and infant birth weight in a prospective cohort study of Chinese women. 2007;166:313–22.
    73. ↵
      1. Wu F-Y,
      2. Wu H-DI,
      3. Yang H-L,
      4. et al
      . Associations among genetic susceptibility, DNA damage, and pregnancy outcomes of expectant mothers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke. 2007;386:124–33.
    74. ↵
      1. Zhang J,
      2. Ratcliffe JM
      . Paternal smoking and birth-weight in Shanghai. Am J Public Health 1993;83:207–10.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    75. ↵
      1. Hanke W,
      2. Sobala W,
      3. Kalinka J
      . [The effect of environmental tobacco smoke on birthweight: a prospective study employing biomarkers of exposure] [Article in Polish]. Ginekol Pol 2000;71:833–6.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    76. ↵
      1. Shah NR,
      2. Bracken MB
      . A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies on the association between maternal cigarette smoking and preterm delivery. 2000;182:465–72.
    77. ↵
      1. Kirchengast S,
      2. Hartmann B
      . Impact of maternal age and maternal somatic characteristics on newborn size. Am J Hum Biol 2003;15:220–8.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    78. ↵
      1. Hughes D,
      2. Simpson L
      . The role of social change in preventing low birth weight. Future Child 1995;5:87–102.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    79. ↵
      1. Reichman NE
      . Low birth weight and school readiness. Future Child 2005;15:91–116.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    80. ↵
      1. Schick S,
      2. Glantz S
      . Philip Morris toxicological experiments with fresh sidestream smoke: more toxic than mainstream smoke. Tob Control 2005;14:396–404.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    81. ↵
      1. Fowles J,
      2. Dybing E
      . Application of toxicological risk assessment principles to the chemical constituents of cigarette smoke. Tob Control 2003;12:424–30.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    82. ↵
      1. Hatsukami DK,
      2. Benowitz NL,
      3. Rennard SI,
      4. et al
      . Biomarkers to assess the utility of potential reduced exposure tobacco products. Nicotine Tob Res 2006;8:600–22.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    83. ↵
      1. Bergen HT
      . Exposure to smoke during development: fetal programming of adult disease. Tob Induced Dis 2006;3:5–16.
      OpenUrl
    84. ↵
      1. Mantzoros CS,
      2. Varvarigou A,
      3. Kaklamani VG,
      4. et al
      . Effect of birth weight and maternal smoking on cord blood leptin concentrations of full-term and preterm newborns. J Clin Endocrinol Metabol 1997;82:2856–61.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    85. ↵
      1. Lindblad A,
      2. Marsal K,
      3. Andersson KE
      . Effect of nicotine on human fetal blood flow. Obstet Gynecol 1988;72:371–82.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    86. ↵
      1. Ashworth A
      . Effects of intrauterine growth retardation on mortality and morbidity in infants and young children. Eur J Clin Nutr 1998;52(Suppl 1):S34–41.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    87. ↵
      1. Mick E,
      2. Biederman J,
      3. Prince J,
      4. et al
      . Impact of low birth weight on attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. J Dev Behav Pediatr 2002;23:16–22.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    88. ↵
      1. Matte TD,
      2. Bresnahan M,
      3. Begg MD,
      4. et al
      . Influence of variation in birth weight within normal range and within sibships on IQ at age 7 years: cohort study. BMJ 2001;323:310–14.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    89. ↵
      1. Barker DJ,
      2. Godfrey KM,
      3. Fall C,
      4. et al
      . Relation of birth weight and childhood respiratory infection to adult lung function and death from chronic obstructive airways disease. BMJ 1991;303:671–5.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    90. ↵
      1. Tanis BC,
      2. Kapiteijn K,
      3. Hage RM,
      4. et al
      . Dutch women with low birth weight have an increased risk of myocardial infarction later in life: a case control study. Reprod Health 2005;2:1–4.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    91. ↵
      1. Dollberg S,
      2. Fainaru O,
      3. Mimouni FB,
      4. et al
      . Effect of passive smoking in pregnancy on neonatal nucleated red blood cells. J Pediatr 2000;106:34–6.
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    92. ↵
      1. Eskenazi B,
      2. Prehn AW,
      3. Christianson RE
      . Passive and active maternal smoking as measured by serum cotinine—the effect on birth-weight. Am J Public Health 1995;85:395–8.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    93. ↵
      1. Gomez C,
      2. Berlin I,
      3. Marquis P,
      4. et al
      . Expired air carbon monoxide concentration in mothers and their spouses above 5 ppm is associated with decreased fetal growth. Prev Med 2005;40:10–15.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    94. ↵
      1. Greider K
      . Kids’ health and safety prevention. Secondhand smoke: risks to kids range from ear infections to SIDS. Parents 1998;73:42–5.
      OpenUrl
    95. ↵
      1. Jaakkola JJK,
      2. Jaakkola N,
      3. Zahlsen K
      . Fetal growth and length of gestation in relation to prenatal exposure to environmental tobacco smoke assessed by hair nicotine concentration. Environ Health Perspect 2001;109:557–61.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    96. ↵
      1. Jadsri S,
      2. Jadsri C
      . Parental smoking habits and infant birth weight. Asia Pac J Public Health 1995;8:134–7.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    97. ↵
      1. MacArthur C,
      2. Knox EG
      . Passive smoking and birth-weight. Lancet 1987;1:37–8.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    98. ↵
      1. Magnus P,
      2. Berg K,
      3. Bjerkedal T,
      4. Nance WE
      . Parental determinants of birth-weight. Clin Genet 1984;26:397–405.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    99. ↵
      1. Rubin DH,
      2. Krasilnikoff PA,
      3. Leventhal JM,
      4. et al
      . Effect of passive smoking on birth-weight. Pediatr Res 1986;20:A383–A.
      OpenUrl
    100. ↵
      1. Terris M,
      2. Gold EM
      . An epidemiological study of prematurity. I. Relation to smoking, heart volume, employment and physique. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1969;103:358–70.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    101. ↵
      1. Ueda Y,
      2. Morikawa H,
      3. Funakoshi T,
      4. et al
      . [Estimation of passive smoking during pregnancy by cotinine measurement and its effect on fetal growth] [Article in Japanese]. Nippon Sanka Fujinka Gakkai Zasshi 1989;41:454–60.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    102. ↵
      1. Underwood PB,
      2. Kesler KF,
      3. Olane JM,
      4. et al
      . Parental smoking empirically related to pregnancy outcome. Obstet Gynecol 1967;29:1–7.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    103. ↵
      1. Yerushalmy J
      . The relationship of parents’ cigarette smoking to outcome of pregnancy—implications as to the problem of inferring causation from observed associations. Am J Epidemiol 1971;93:443–56.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    View Abstract

    Footnotes

    • Contributors: JL-B participated in the conception, design, identifying studies, data collection, study selection, data extraction, analysis, and interpretation of the data; in the writing of the protocol, drafting and revising the article. AS, JB and TC participated in the conception, design, study selection, data extraction, and interpretation of the data; in the writing the protocol, in drafting the article and revising it critically for important intellectual content, and approved the final version to be published.

    • Funding: This study was internally funded by the University of Nottingham. The sponsor had no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the paper for publication.

    • Competing interests: None declared.

    Linked Articles

    • Fantoms
      Fantoms
      Martin Ward Platt
      Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition 2008; 93 F329-F329 Published Online First: 22 Aug 2008.