ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2017
Scientific Opinion of the PPR Panel on the follow-up of the findings of the External Scientific Report 'Literature review of epidemiological studies linking exposure to pesticides and health effects'.
Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic update to the mammalian relative potency estimate database and development of best estimate toxic equivalency factors for dioxin-like compounds.Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP · 2024Pooled it
- Community Health Impacts of Pesticide Exposure: Pathways, Vulnerable Populations, and Public Health Responses.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Review
- Advancing the One Health Framework in EU Plant Protection Product Regulation: Challenges and Opportunities.Journal of xenobiotics · 2025Article
- Herbicides in Use: Current Status and Perspectives in the Different Biogeographic Regions of Europe.Journal of agricultural and food chemistry · 2025Review
- From gut to liver: organoids as platforms for next-generation toxicology assessment vehicles for xenobiotics.Stem cell research & therapy · 2025Review
- Scientific Committee guidance on appraising and integrating evidence from epidemiological studies for use in EFSA's scientific assessments.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2024Article
- Application of AOPs to assist regulatory assessment of chemical risks - Case studies, needs and recommendations.Environmental research · 2023Review
- Peste Des Petits Ruminants Screening and Diagnostic Tests in African Wildlife in the Context of Rinderpest Eradication (1994-2007).Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2023Article
- Health Effects of Pesticide Exposure in Latin American and the Caribbean Populations: A Scoping Review.Environmental health perspectives · 2022Article
- A Critical Scoping Review of Pesticide Exposure Biomonitoring Studies in Overhead Cultures.Toxics · 2022Article
- Environmental epidemiology and risk assessment: Exploring a path to increased confidence in public health decision-making.Global epidemiology · 2021Article
- How Many Urine Samples Are Needed to Accurately Assess Exposure to Non-Persistent Chemicals? The Biomarker Reliability Assessment Tool (BRAT) for Scientists, Research Sponsors, and Risk Managers.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- "Good Epidemiology Practice" Guidelines for Pesticide Exposure Assessment.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- emagnification: A tool for estimating effect-size magnification and performing design calculations in epidemiological studies.The Stata journal · 2020Article
- A matrix for bridging the epidemiology and risk assessment gap.Global epidemiology · 2019Article
- Moving towards a holistic approach for human health risk assessment - Is the current approach fit for purpose?EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2019Article
- Biomonitoring and Nonpersistent Chemicals-Understanding and Addressing Variability and Exposure Misclassification.Current environmental health reports · 2019Review
- Guidance for the identification of endocrine disruptors in the context of Regulations (EU) No 528/2012 and (EC) No 1107/2009.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2018Article
- Revisiting Risk Governance of GM Plants: The Need to Consider New and Emerging Gene-Editing Techniques.Frontiers in plant science · 2018Review
- Scientific Opinion of the PPR Panel on the follow-up of the findings of the External Scientific Report 'Literature review of epidemiological studies linking exposure to pesticides and health effects'.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 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
30 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 2013, EFSA published a comprehensive systematic review of epidemiological studies published from 2006 to 2012 investigating the association between pesticide exposure and many health outcomes. Despite the considerable amount of epidemiological information available, the quality of much of this evidence was rather low and many limitations likely affect the results so firm conclusions cannot be drawn. Studies that do not meet the 'recognised standards' mentioned in the Regulation (EU) No 1107/2009 are thus not suited for risk assessment. In this Scientific Opinion, the EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their residues (PPR Panel) was requested to assess the methodological limitations of pesticide epidemiology studies and found that poor exposure characterisation primarily defined the major limitation. Frequent use of case-control studies as opposed to prospective studies was considered another limitation. Inadequate definition or deficiencies in health outcomes need to be avoided and reporting of findings could be improved in some cases. The PPR Panel proposed recommendations on how to improve the quality and reliability of pesticide epidemiology studies to overcome these limitations and to facilitate an appropriate use for risk assessment. The Panel recommended the conduct of systematic reviews and meta-analysis, where appropriate, of pesticide observational studies as useful methodology to understand the potential hazards of pesticides, exposure scenarios and methods for assessing exposure, exposure-response characterisation and risk characterisation. Finally, the PPR Panel proposed a methodological approach to integrate and weight multiple lines of evidence, including epidemiological data, for pesticide risk assessment. Biological plausibility can contribute to establishing causation.
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.