ArticleCurrent epidemiology reports2022
Ambient air pollution exposure assessments in fertility studies: A systematic review and guide for reproductive epidemiologists.
Article in Current epidemiology reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-genetic risk factors of miscarriage: a comprehensive umbrella review of systematic review and meta-analysis.Reproductive health · 2025Pooled it
- Ambient air pollution in critical windows of exposure and spontaneous miscarriage in a preconception cohort.Environmental research · 2025Article
- A review of geospatial exposure models and approaches for health data integration.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose of review: We reviewed the exposure assessments of ambient air pollution used in studies of fertility, fecundability, and pregnancy loss. Recent findings: Comprehensive literature searches were performed in the PUBMED, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. Of 168 total studies, 45 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. We find that 69% of fertility and pregnancy loss studies have used one-dimensional proximity models or surface monitor data, while only 35% have used the improved models, such as land-use regression models (4%), dispersion/chemical transport models (11%), or fusion models (20%). No published studies have used personal air monitors. Summary: While air pollution exposure models have vastly improved over the past decade from simple, one-dimensional distance or air monitor data, to models that incorporate physiochemical properties leading to better predictive accuracy, precision, and increased spatiotemporal variability and resolution, the fertility literature has yet to fully incorporate these new methods. We provide descriptions of each of these air pollution exposure models and assess the strengths and limitations of each model, while summarizing the findings of the literature on ambient air pollution and fertility that apply each method.
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.