Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35754929›Full record

ArticleCurrent epidemiology reports2022

Ambient air pollution exposure assessments in fertility studies: A systematic review and guide for reproductive epidemiologists.

Johanna R Jahnke, Kyle P Messier, Melissa Lowe, Anne Marie Jukic

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. A review of geospatial exposure models and approaches for health data integration.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2025
    Review
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Johanna R JahnkeFertility and Reproductive Health Group, Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Durham, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1875-5332
Kyle P MessierSpatiotemporal Health Analytics Group, Predictive Toxicology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Durham, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9508-9623
Melissa LoweSpatiotemporal Health Analytics Group, Predictive Toxicology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Durham, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8021-8477
Anne Marie JukicFertility and Reproductive Health Group, Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Durham, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8635-9505
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences · US

Funding

POPULATION STUDIEST32HD007168 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI ELIZABETH A FRANKENBERG · 1985 to 2026
$13.8M
Environmental influences on fertility and reproductive healthZIAES103333 · NIEHS · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES · PI JUKIC, ANNE MARIE · 2019 to 2025
$7.3M
Spatiotemporal Health Analytics: Geospatial connections to toxicologyZIAES103368 · NIEHS · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES · PI MESSIER, KYLE · 2021 to 2025
$5.8M
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA ES103333NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD007168
6 · The paper itself

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

air pollution exposurefecundabilityfertilitypregnancy loss

Identifiers

PMID35754929
PMCPMC9229606
OpenAlexW4280635790

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.