Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15150386›Full record

ArticleOccupational and environmental medicine2004

Twin frequency and industrial pollution in different regions of Hesse, Germany.

N Obi-Osius, B Misselwitz, W Karmaus, J Witten

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Occupational and environmental medicine, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

N Obi-OsiusEpidemiological Working Group of the Ministry of Environment and Health and the Institute for Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany. osius@uke.uni-hamburg.de
B Misselwitz
W Karmaus
J Witten

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo investigate whether twinning occurs more frequently in residents in the vicinity of a toxic waste incinerator (TWI).

methodsWithin a longitudinal environmental study that addressed child health second grade school children and their parents were recruited. The proportion of twinning in the TWI region was compared with two comparison areas. In a second confirmatory investigation, birth records for the years 1994-97 from the Hessian Perinatal Survey (HEPS) were accessed to determine whether the incidence of twinning was higher in regions around the TWI compared to adjacent reference areas.

resultsIn the environmental study, 61.5% of the children and 95% of their mothers participated. In mothers, twinning was 5.3% in the TWI region compared to 1.6% and 2.3% in the comparison regions. The proportion of mothers with fertility assessment/treatment was 5.7%, 8.3%, and 0% respectively. The prevalence of twinning was not significantly higher (4.5%) in mothers with treatment compared to mothers without (3.7%). From the HEPS, data of 20 603 births was analysed. The incidence of twins was significantly higher in areas which surround the TWI and other industries (1.4-1.6 per 100 births) compared to births in reference areas (0.8 per 100).

conclusionsTwinning rates may be associated with exposure to industrial pollution. Future environmental health studies that consider multiple births as an outcome are warranted. These should also investigate whether the incidence of monozygotic or dizygotic twinning may be associated with industrial pollution.

Indexed as

IncinerationBirth RateEnvironmental MonitoringEpidemiological MonitoringFemaleFertilityGermanyHazardous WasteHumansIncidenceLongitudinal StudiesPregnancyTwinning, MonozygoticTwinsHazardous Waste

Identifiers

PMID15150386
PMCPMC1763650

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.