SynthesisCritical reviews in toxicology2015
Review of genotoxicity biomonitoring studies of glyphosate-based formulations.
Synthesis in Critical reviews in toxicology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clarification of the molecular mechanisms underlying glyphosate-induced major depressive disorder: a network toxicology approach.Annals of general psychiatry · 2024Article
- Glyphosate and its formulation Roundup impair pig oocyte maturation.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Glyphosate toxicity and carcinogenicity: a review of the scientific basis of the European Union assessment and its differences with IARC.Archives of toxicology · 2017Review
- Facts and Fallacies in the Debate on Glyphosate Toxicity.Frontiers in public health · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Abstract Human and environmental genotoxicity biomonitoring studies involving exposure to glyphosate-based formulations (GBFs) were reviewed to complement an earlier review of experimental genotoxicity studies of glyphosate and GBFs. The environmental and most of the human biomonitoring studies were not informative because there was either a very low frequency of GBF exposure or exposure to a large number of pesticides without analysis of specific pesticide effects. One pesticide sprayer biomonitoring study indicated there was not a statistically significant relationship between frequency of GBF exposure reported for the last spraying season and oxidative DNA damage. There were three studies of human populations in regions of GBF aerial spraying. One study found increases for the cytokinesis-block micronucleus endpoint but these increases did not show statistically significant associations with self-reported spray exposure and were not consistent with application rates. A second study found increases for the blood cell comet endpoint at high exposures causing toxicity. However, a follow-up to this study 2 years after spraying did not indicate chromosomal effects. The results of the biomonitoring studies do not contradict an earlier conclusion derived from experimental genotoxicity studies that typical GBFs do not appear to present significant genotoxic risk under normal conditions of human or environmental exposures.
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.