ArticleBirth defects research. Part A, Clinical and molecular teratology2016
Paternal and joint parental occupational pesticide exposure and spina bifida in the National Birth Defects Prevention Study, 1997 to 2002.
Article in Birth defects research. Part A, Clinical and molecular teratology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Congenital anomalies in the offspring of occupationally exposed mothers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies using expert assessment for occupational exposures.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2019Pooled it
- Review
- Prevalence of Congenital Anomalies in the Japan Environment and Children's Study.Journal of epidemiology · 2019Article
- Maternal Occupational Oil Mist Exposure and Birth Defects, National Birth Defects Prevention Study, 1997⁻2011.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBecause of persistent concerns over the association between pesticides and spina bifida, we examined the role of paternal and combined parental occupational pesticide exposures in spina bifida in offspring using data from a large population-based study of birth defects.
methodsOccupational information from fathers of 291 spina bifida cases and 2745 unaffected live born control infants with estimated dates of delivery from 1997 to 2002 were collected by means of maternal report. Two expert industrial hygienists estimated exposure intensity and frequency to insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for exposure to any pesticide and to any class of pesticide (yes/no; and by median), and exposure to combinations of pesticides (yes/no) and risk of spina bifida. Adjusted odds ratios were also estimated by parent exposed to pesticides (neither, mother only, father only, both parents).
resultsJoint parental occupational pesticide exposure was positively associated with spina bifida (aOR, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.9-2.4) when compared with infants with neither maternal nor paternal exposures; a similar association was not observed when only one parent was exposed. There was a suggested positive association between combined paternal insecticide and fungicide exposures and spina bifida (aOR, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.8-2.8), however, nearly all other aORs were close to unity.
conclusionOverall, there was little evidence paternal occupational pesticide exposure was associated with spina bifida. However, the small numbers make it difficult to precisely evaluate the role of pesticide classes, individually and in combination. Birth Defects Research (Part A) 106:963-971, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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.