Persistent organic pollutants and couple fecundability: a systematic review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Despite increasing regulation, exposure to persistent organic pollutants (POPs) remains a serious public health concern due to their accumulation in the environment and ability to biomagnify up the food chain. POPs are associated with endocrine-disrupting effects including adverse reproductive outcomes that could affect fecundability, i.e. the capacity to conceive a pregnancy, quantified as time to pregnancy (TTP). OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: Results of epidemiologic studies that examine the impact of various chemical classes of POPs on TTP have not been synthesised. We undertook a systematic review to summarise the strength of evidence for associations of four common groups of POPs with couple fecundability and to identify gaps and limitations in the literature in order to inform policy decisions and future research. SEARCH METHODS: We performed an electronic search of literature published between 1 January 2007 and 6 August 2019 in MEDLINE, EMBASE.com, Global Health, DART/TOXLINE and POPLINE. We included empirical research papers that examined human exposure to organochlorine (OC) pesticides, brominated flame retardants, polychlorinated organic compounds and/or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and considered TTP or fecundability as an outcome. Standardised forms for screening, data extraction and study quality were developed using DistillerSR software, and all reviews were completed in duplicate. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess risk of bias and devised additional quality metrics based on specific methodological features of fecundability studies. OUTCOMES: The search returned 4573 articles, and 28 papers from 19 different studies met inclusion criteria. Among them, four studies measured TTP prospectively, three had data on participants' prenatal exposure, three examined associations in both male and female partners and one focused exclusively on males. Analyses varied widely in terms of exposure characterisation, precluding a meta-analytic approach. Evidence was strongest for adverse associations of female exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls with TTP, with some additional support for associations of female exposure to polybrominated diphenyl ethers and PFAS with longer TTP. Our review provided little or no support for associations between female exposure to OC pesticides or male exposure to any of the POP groups and TTP. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: Evidence suggests that female exposure to at least some POPs may reduce fecundability. Although many of these chemicals are no longer in production, they are still detectable in human biosamples because of their persistence in the environment. Replacement chemicals that are being introduced as older ones are restricted may have similar reproductive consequences. Future studies should examine these newer POPs, assess interactions between POPs and other chemical and non-chemical exposures, investigate how POPs are distributed in and metabolised by the human body and focus on populations that may be disproportionately exposed.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,049 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,008 | 0,007 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,013 | 0,016 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».