ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Occupational Exposure to Inhalational Anesthetics and Teratogenic Effects: A Systematic Review.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Occupational exposure to inhalational anesthetics and the risk of spontaneous abortion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Article
- Pregnancy challenges and outcomes among female physicians.Discoveries (Craiova, Romania)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: In the current healthcare environment, there is a large proportion of female staff of childbearing age, so, according to existing conflicting studies, the teratogenic effects that inhalational anesthetics may have on exposed pregnant workers should be assessed. This investigation aims to analyze the teratogenic effects of inhalational anesthetics in conditions of actual use, determining any association with spontaneous abortion or congenital malformations. (2) Methods: A systematic review was carried out according to the PRISMA statement based on PICO (problem of interest-intervention to be considered-intervention compared-outcome) (Do inhalational anesthetics have teratogenic effects in current clinical practice?). The level of evidence of the selected articles was evaluated using the SIGN scale. The databases used were PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Google academic and Opengrey. Primary studies conducted in professionals exposed to inhalational anesthetics that evaluate spontaneous abortions or congenital malformations, conducted in any country and language and published within the last ten years were selected. (3) Results: Of the 541 studies identified, 6 met all inclusion criteria in answering the research question. Since many methodological differences were found in estimating exposure to inhalational anesthetics, a qualitative systematic review was performed. The selected studies have a retrospective cohort design and mostly present a low level of evidence and a low grade of recommendation. Studies with the highest level of evidence do not find an association between the use of inhalational anesthetics and the occurrence of miscarriage or congenital malformations. (4) Conclusions: The administration of inhalational anesthetics, especially with gas extraction systems (scavenging systems) and the adequate ventilation of operating rooms, is not associated with the occurrence of spontaneous abortions or congenital malformations.
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.