Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26732622›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2016

Human anogenital distance: an update on fetal smoke-exposure and integration of the perinatal literature on sex differences.

Paul A Fowler, Panagiotis Filis, Siladitya Bhattacharya, Bruno le Bizec, Jean-Philippe Antignac, Marie-Line Morvan, Amanda J Drake, Ugo Soffientini, Peter J O'Shaughnessy

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Prenatal Exposure to Cigarette Smoke and Anogenital Distance at 4 Years in the INMA-Asturias Cohort.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Paul A FowlerInstitute of Medical Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK p.a.fowler@abdn.ac.uk.
Panagiotis FilisInstitute of Medical Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK.
Siladitya BhattacharyaInstitute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK.
Bruno le BizecUSC INRA 1329 Laboratoire d'Etude des Résidus et Contaminants dans les Aliments, LUNAM Université, Oniris, Nantes F-44307, France.
Jean-Philippe AntignacUSC INRA 1329 Laboratoire d'Etude des Résidus et Contaminants dans les Aliments, LUNAM Université, Oniris, Nantes F-44307, France.
Marie-Line MorvanUSC INRA 1329 Laboratoire d'Etude des Résidus et Contaminants dans les Aliments, LUNAM Université, Oniris, Nantes F-44307, France.
Amanda J DrakeEndocrinology Unit, Queen's Medical Research Institute, University/BHF Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh, 47 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh EH16 4TJ, UK.
Ugo SoffientiniInstitute of Biodiversity, Animal Health & Comparative Medicine (IBAHCM), College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Bearsden Rd, Glasgow G61 1QH, UK.
Peter J O'ShaughnessyInstitute of Biodiversity, Animal Health & Comparative Medicine (IBAHCM), College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Bearsden Rd, Glasgow G61 1QH, UK.
University of Aberdeen · GBUniversity of Glasgow · GBLaboratoire D'étude des Résidus et Contaminants Dans les Aliments · FROniris · FRThe Queen's Medical Research Institute · GBUniversité Nantes Angers Le Mans · FR

Funding

Chief Scientist Office CZG/1/109Medical Research Council MR/L010011/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionDo sex and maternal smoking effects on human fetal anogenital distance (AGD) persist in a larger study and how do these data integrate with the wider literature on perinatal human AGD, especially with respect to sex differences? SUMMARY ANSWER: Second trimester sex differences in AGD are broadly consistent with neonatal and infant measures of AGD and maternal cigarette smoking is associated with a temporary increase in male AGD in the absence of changes in circulating testosterone. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: AGD is a biomarker of fetal androgen exposure, a reduced AGD in males being associated with cryptorchidism, hypospadias and reduced penile length. Normative fetal AGD data remain partial and windows of sensitivity of human fetal AGD to disruption are not known. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The effects of fetal sex and maternal cigarette smoking on the second trimester (11-21 weeks of gestation) human fetal AGD were studied, along with measurement of testosterone and testicular transcripts associated with apoptosis and proliferation. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING

methodsAGD, measured from the centre of the anus to the posterior/caudal root of penis/clitoris (AGD(app)) was determined in 56 female and 70 male morphologically normal fetuses. These data were integrated with current literature on perinatal AGD in humans. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: At 11-13 weeks of gestation male fetal AGD(app) was 61% (P< 0.001) longer than in females, increasing to 70% at 17-21 weeks. This sexual dimorphism was independent of growth characteristics (fetal weight, length, gonad weight). We confirmed that at 14-16 weeks of gestation male fetal AGD(app) was increased 28% (P < 0.05) by in utero cigarette smoke exposure. Testosterone levels were not affected by smoking. To develop normative data, our findings have been integrated with available data from in vivo ultrasound scans and neonatal studies. Inter-study variations in male/female AGD differences lead to the conclusion that normalization and standardization approaches should be developed to enable confidence in comparing data from different perinatal AGD studies. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Sex differences, and a smoking-dependent increase in male fetal AGD at 14-16 weeks, identified in a preliminary study, were confirmed with a larger number of fetuses. However, human fetal AGD should, be re-assessed once much larger numbers of fetuses have been studied and this should be integrated with more detailed analysis of maternal lifestyle. Direct study of human fetal genital tissues is required for further mechanistic insights. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsFetal exposure to cigarette smoke chemicals is known to lead to reduced fertility in men and women. Integration of our data into the perinatal human AGD literature shows that more work needs to be done to enable reliable inter-study comparisons. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study was supported by grants from the Chief Scientist Office (Scottish Executive, CZG/1/109 & CZG/4/742), NHS Grampian Endowments (08/02), the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no 212885 and the Medical Research Council, UK (MR/L010011/1). The authors declare they have no competing interests, be it financial, personal or professional.

Indexed as

Prenatal Exposure Delayed EffectsSex CharacteristicsAdultAnal CanalBody Weights and MeasuresClitorisCotinineFemaleFetal DevelopmentHumansInfantMaleMaternal AgePenisPregnancyPregnancy Trimester, SecondCotinineSmokeTestosteroneanogenital distanceapoptosisdysregulationendocrine-disrupting chemicalsfetusmaternal cigarette smoking humannormative dataproliferationsecond trimestertestosterone

Identifiers

PMID26732622
PMCPMC4716811
OpenAlexW2252376046

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.