Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checked I-ABX-115 standard review

Infant antibiotics linked to childhood asthma, less so after accounting for bias

Association of infant antibiotic exposure and risk of childhood asthma: A meta-analysis.

Overview

Zhang Z et al.. World Allergy Organ J 2021 · PMID 34934469 · DOI 10.1016/j.waojou.2021.100607

Pooled data: about 37% higher odds, 19% when bias is addressed.

Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate

Original publication

Plain-language summary

Study explained simply
What did the researchers want to find out?

Pool studies on infant antibiotics and asthma

How was the study done?

Meta-analysis

How many people, animals or samples were studied?

52 studies

What was actually found?

Association persists but weakens

How large was the observed effect?

OR 1.37; 1.19 in better studies

What do the results mean in everyday life?

Small possible effect

What are the study's limitations?

Observational

What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

Supports an association, not proof of cause

Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

Moderate

What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

Whether antibiotics cause asthma

Scientific in-depth review

1. Full reference

Authors
Zhang Z et al.
Journal
World Allergy Organ J
Year
2021
Identifier
PMID 34934469 DOI 10.1016/j.waojou.2021.100607
Verification
verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-26 + Crossref
Retracted
no
Corrections
none
Extent checked
abstract only
Conflicts of interest and funding

Authors report no conflicts (record).

2. Research question

Is infant antibiotic exposure associated with childhood asthma when potential confounders are considered?

3. Study design and population

Study design
Meta-analysis – Meta-analysis of observational studies
Population

Infants and children

Country

Multinational

Period

Publications January 2011-March 2021

Sample size

52 studies

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Observational studies

4. Methods and endpoints

Exposure / intervention

Infant antibiotic exposure

Comparator

No exposure

Endpoints

Childhood asthma

Statistical methods

Random-effects ORs; stratified analyses

5. Actual results

Results

Overall OR 1.37 (95% CI 1.29-1.45); studies addressing reverse causation and confounding by indication OR 1.19 (1.11-1.28); macrolides OR 1.56; >=5 courses OR 1.79; short time lag OR 2.05 (1.91-2.20).

Absolute risks

not reported

Authors' conclusion

Infant antibiotic exposure is associated with increased asthma risk considering confounding; heterogeneity calls for caution.

6. Strengths

  • Large number of studies
  • Subgroup for reverse causation/confounding by indication

7. Weaknesses

  • Observational; heterogeneity
  • Short-lag subgroup shows strongest effect, typical of reverse causation

8. Risk of bias

Orienting tool
AMSTAR 2
Type of assessment
simplified assessment (abstract only)
Full formal assessment
no
Overall risk of bias
some concerns
Rationale

Overlapping cohorts with earlier meta-analyses.

9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation

Attenuation from 1.37 to 1.19 when bias is addressed (about 45% of the log-excess) and the strongest effect with short time lag both point to partial reverse causation.

10. Relevance to the specific claim

Best pooled estimate of the association.

11. Independent contrary findings

Sibling analyses (I-ABX-03) show further attenuation.

12. Transferability to Germany and Europe

Moderate.

13. Overall methodological judgement

A modest residual association persists, causality unresolved.

Multidimensional assessment
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the sourceverified
Methodological qualitymoderate
Risk of biassome concerns
Precision of resultshigh
Directnessdirect
Reproducibilityreplicated
Consistency with the overall evidenceconsistent
Regional transferabilitymoderate
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)not applicable

14. Open questions

Causal contribution.

15. Linked fact checks