ArticleJournal of epidemiology and community health1988
Advantages of a standard method for research on reproductive effects of occupation.
Article in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 1988. 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.
- Detection of agents causing genetic or reproductive damage.British journal of industrial medicine · 1992Article
- Lead-exposed workmen and fertility: a cohort study on 354 subjects.European journal of epidemiology · 1991Article
- Use of questionnaires in a study of spontaneous abortion in a general population.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 1990Article
- Feasibility of studying subfertility using retrospective self reports.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 1989Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A recent review of the literature identified several common methodological weaknesses in studies of the effects of occupational exposures on male and female reproductive processes. This paper suggests a strategy which addresses these problems, by the use of a standard method. The potential benefits include increased measurement reliability and statistical power, together with a systematic study of expected (background) rates, confounding effects, types of exposure and selection effects. Particular advantages are the avoidance of designating a group as non-exposed with attendant problems of bias, and in the longer term the study of multiple or rare 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.