ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2007
Evidence of an environmental contribution to the aetiology of cryptorchidism and hypospadias?
Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
- Spatial analysis of hypospadias cases in northern France: taking clinical data into account.BMC pediatrics · 2020Article
- Geographic analysis of individual and environmental risk factors for hypospadias births.Birth defects research. Part A, Clinical and molecular teratology · 2014Article
- A review of spatial methods in epidemiology, 2000-2010.Annual review of public health · 2012Review
- Prevalence and risk factors of hypospadias in a private hospital in northeast iran.Iranian journal of pediatrics · 2011Article
- The Generation R Study: design and cohort update 2010.European journal of epidemiology · 2010Article
- Risk of congenital anomalies around a municipal solid waste incinerator: a GIS-based case-control study.International journal of health geographics · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesEvidence suggests that there is geographical variation in the birth prevalence of both cryptorchidism and hypospadias. The aim was to determine if there is evidence of spatial heterogeneity in the prevalence of these conditions and to test the hypothesis that environmental factors may contribute to aetiology.
methodsA population-based dataset of cryptorchidism and hypospadias cases was constructed from the hospital episodes statistics that covered the Northern Region of England and assigned to a small area based on the residential address at time of admission. Expected numbers of cases for each small area were computed. The ratio of observed to expected cases was determined for each small area and analysed with respect to both geographical heterogeneity and small area level socio-economic deprivation. The Potthoff-Whittinghill method was used to determine if there was localized spatial clustering of cases.
resultsThere was statistically significant spatial clustering for cases of both cryptorchidism [estimated Extra-Poisson Variation (EPV) = 0.14; 95% CI, 0.03-0.25] and hypospadias (EPV = 0.17; 95% CI, 0.05-0.28). In addition, increased prevalence was associated with lower levels of deprivation for hypospadias (P = 0.06), but there was no such relationship for cryptorchidism (P = 0.61).
conclusionsThe finding of localized spatial heterogeneity in the prevalence of cryptorchidism and hypospadias is consistent with the involvement of a spatially varying environmental risk factor. The apparent social patterning of hypospadias is likely to reflect an association with lifestyle and other factors which underpin social variation in health. However, there also remains a possibility that these findings may be due to variability in ascertainment of cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17636413What 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.