Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32958228›Full record

SynthesisEnvironment international2020

Hazards of diethyl phthalate (DEP) exposure: A systematic review of animal toxicology studies.

James A Weaver, Brandiese E J Beverly, Nagalakshmi Keshava, Anuradha Mudipalli, Xabier Arzuaga, Christine Cai, Andrew K Hotchkiss, Susan L Makris, Erin E Yost

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Environment international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Open veterinary journal · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. A physiologically based pharmacokinetic model of diethyl phthalates in humans.Environmental pollution (Barking, Essex : 1987) · 2024
    Article
  17. A Novel and Efficient Phthalate Hydrolase fromMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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.

James A WeaverU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC, United States.
Brandiese E J BeverlyU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC, United States.
Nagalakshmi KeshavaU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC, United States.
Anuradha MudipalliU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC, United States.
Xabier ArzuagaU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC, United States.
Christine CaiU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC, United States.
Andrew K HotchkissU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC, United States.
Susan L MakrisU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC, United States.
Erin E YostU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC, United States. Electronic address: Yost.Erin@epa.gov.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiethyl phthalate (DEP) is widely used in many commercially available products including plastics and personal care products. DEP has generally not been found to share the antiandrogenic mode of action that is common among other types of phthalates, but there is emerging evidence that DEP may be associated with other types of health effects.

objectiveTo inform chemical risk assessment, we performed a systematic review to identify and characterize outcomes within six broad hazard categories (male reproductive, female reproductive, developmental, liver, kidney, and cancer) following exposure of nonhuman mammalian animals to DEP or its primary metabolite, monoethyl phthalate (MEP).

methodsA literature search was conducted in online scientific databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Toxline, Toxcenter) and Toxic Substances Control Act Submissions, augmented by review of online regulatory sources as well as forward and backward searches. Studies were selected for inclusion using PECO (Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcome) criteria. Studies were evaluated using criteria defined a priori for reporting quality, risk of bias, and sensitivity using a domain-based approach. Evidence was synthesized by outcome and life stage of exposure, and strength of evidence was summarized into categories of robust, moderate, slight, indeterminate, or compelling evidence of no effect, using a structured framework.

resultsThirty-four experimental studies in animals were included in this analysis. Although no effects on androgen-dependent male reproductive development were observed following gestational exposure to DEP, there was evidence including effects on sperm following peripubertal and adult exposures, and the overall evidence for male reproductive effects was considered moderate. There was moderate evidence that DEP exposure can lead to developmental effects, with the major effect being reduced postnatal growth following gestational or early postnatal exposure; this generally occurred at doses associated with maternal effects, consistent with the observation that DEP is not a potent developmental toxicant. The evidence for liver effects was considered moderate based on consistent changes in relative liver weight at higher dose levels; histopathological and biochemical changes indicative of hepatic effects were also observed, but primarily in studies that had significant concerns for risk of bias and sensitivity. The evidence for female reproductive effects was considered slight based on few reports of statistically significant effects on maternal body weight gain, organ weight changes, and pregnancy outcomes. Evidence for cancer and effects on kidney were judged to be indeterminate based on limited evidence (i.e., a single two-year cancer bioassay) and inconsistent findings, respectively.

conclusionsThese results suggest that DEP exposure may induce androgen-independent male reproductive toxicity (i.e., sperm effects) as well as developmental toxicity and hepatic effects, with some evidence of female reproductive toxicity. More research is warranted to fully evaluate these outcomes and strengthen confidence in this database.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPhthalic AcidsAnimalsFemaleLiverMalePregnancyReproductionRisk Assessmentdiethyl phthalatePhthalic AcidsDiethyl phthalatePhthalatesRisk assessmentSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32958228
PMCPMC7995140

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.