ArticleOccupational and environmental medicine2001
Solvent use and time to pregnancy among female personnel in biomedical laboratories in Sweden.
Article in Occupational and environmental medicine, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.
- Indoor and outdoor air pollution and couple fecundability: a systematic review.Human reproduction update · 2023Pooled it
- Exposure to tetrachloroethylene-contaminated drinking water and time to pregnancy.Environmental research · 2018Article
- Windows of sensitivity to toxic chemicals in the development of reproductive effects: an analysis of ATSDR's toxicological profile database.International journal of environmental health research · 2018Article
- Proceedings of the Summit on Environmental Challenges to Reproductive Health and Fertility: executive summary.Fertility and sterility · 2008Article
- Fertility and exposure to solvents among families in the Agricultural Health Study.Occupational and environmental medicine · 2006Article
- Methodologic and statistical approaches to studying human fertility and environmental exposure.Environmental health perspectives · 2004Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo elucidate possible effects on fecundability from chemical, biological, and physical agents in laboratories, a retrospective study based on a questionnaire was conducted among female personnel who worked in Swedish biomedical research laboratories. Female personnel in non-laboratory departments were used as a reference group. The maximum number of women included in the analyses was 560. This corresponded to 2519 menstrual cycles. These women had given birth at least once during the period 1990-4.
methodsTime to pregnancy was used to estimate the fecundability-that is, probability of conception of a clinically detectable pregnancy per cycle. The fecundability ratio (FR) between exposed and unexposed cycles was calculated with a discrete time analogue of the Cox's proportional-hazards model. The FR estimates below unity indicate subfecundity.
resultsWork with organic solvents in general in laboratory work, gave a decreased adjusted fecundability ratio (FR) of 0.79 (95% confidence interval (95 % CI) 0.68 to 0.93). Moreover, work with acetone and use of viruses also showed decreased FRs, 0.72 (0.53 to 0.97) and 0.66 (0.49 to 0.90), respectively.
conclusionsThe results of the present study give some indications of reduced fecundability for work with specific agents in laboratories, and support previously reported findings of a negative influence of organic solvents on fecundity among female laboratory personnel.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.