Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35434460›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental epidemiology (Philadelphia, Pa.)2022

Is maternal employment site a source of exposure misclassification in studies of environmental exposures and birth outcomes? A simulation-based bias analysis of haloacetic acids in tap water and hypospadias.

Ibrahim Zaganjor, Alexander P Keil, Thomas J Luben, Tania A Desrosiers, Lawrence S Engel, Jennita Reefhuis, Adrian M Michalski, Peter H Langlois, Andrew F Olshan, National Birth Defects Prevention Study

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental epidemiology (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

10 authors.

Ibrahim ZaganjorDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Alexander P KeilDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Thomas J LubenDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Tania A DesrosiersDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Lawrence S EngelDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Jennita ReefhuisDivision of Birth Defects and Infant Disorders, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Adrian M MichalskiNew York State Department of Health, Bureau of Environmental and Occupational Epidemiology, Albany, New York.
Peter H LangloisDivision of Epidemiology, Human Genetics, and Environmental Sciences, University of Texas School of Public Health, Austin, Texas.
Andrew F OlshanDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
National Birth Defects Prevention Study

Funding

Training Program in Reproductive, Perinatal, and Pediatric EpidemiologyT32HD052468 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Julie L Daniels · 2008 to 2026
$3.8M
NCBDD CDC HHS U01 DD001227NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD052468
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In population research, exposure to environmental contaminants is often indirectly assessed by linking residence to geocoded databases of environmental exposures. We explored the potential for misclassification of residence-based environmental exposure as a result of not accounting for the workplace environments of employed pregnant women using data from a National Birth Defects Prevention Study (NBDPS) analysis of drinking water haloacetic acids and hypospadias. Methods: The original analysis used NBDPS data from women with haloacetic acid exposure information in eight states who delivered an infant with second- or third-degree hypospadias (cases) or a male infant without a birth defect (controls) between 2000 and 2005. In this bias analysis, we used a uniform distribution to randomly select 11%-14% of employed women that were assumed to change municipal water systems between home and work and imputed new contaminant exposures for tap water beverages consumed at work among the selected women using resampled values from the control population. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the association between hypospadias and haloacetic acid ingestion with the same covariates and exposure cut-points as the original study. We repeated this process across 10,000 iterations and then completed a sensitivity analysis of an additional 10,000 iterations where we expanded the uniform distribution (i.e., 0%, 28%). Results: In both simulations, the average results of the 10,000 iterations were nearly identical to those of the initial study. Conclusions: Our results suggest that household estimates may be sufficient proxies for worksite exposures to haloacetic acids in tap water.

Indexed as

Bias analysisBirth defectsDisinfection by-productsExposure misclassificationHaloacetic acidsHypospadias

Identifiers

PMID35434460
PMCPMC9005252

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.