SynthesisFrontiers in public health2025
Assessment of ovarian dysfunction induced by environmental toxins: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
- Exposure to Legacy and Novel Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and Diminished Ovarian Reserve: Evidence from Blood-Follicle Transfer and Mixture Risk Assessment in Reproductive-Aged Women.Environment & health (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Article
- Living in a chemical cocktail: real-world mixture exposures and their impact on ovarian function.The Journal of reproduction and development · 2026Review
- Assessment indicators of ovarian response during controlled ovarian stimulation: influencing factors and clinical value.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- Duty of Care Governance: a conceptual framework for aligning health system scale with the clinician-patient relationship.Frontiers in systems biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study systematically assess the potential impact of various environmental pollutants as chemical, airborne, and heavy metal on ovarian function in women, focusing on ovarian reserve such as anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) and antral follicle count (AFC) as well as hormone levels like follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and estradiol (E2). By reviewing epidemiological evidence, this research aims to elucidate the reproductive toxicity of these pollutants and provide scientific support for public health policy to protect reproductive health in women of childbearing age. Methods: Following the PRISMA-P guidelines, a comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases to include all relevant studies up to July 30, 2024. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach were used to assess study quality. Results: This study ultimately included 40 cohort study reports derived from 33 distinct studies that analyzed the effects of 20 pollutant types on ovarian function. Results indicate that pollutants, such as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), phthalates (PAEs), triclosan, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), PM2.5, and SO Conclusion: This review underscores that specific pollutants (e.g., PCBs, PFAS, PM) pose substantial risks to reproductive health in women of childbearing age, particularly in highly polluted environments. The findings underscore the importance of regular ovarian health monitoring, especially for women at higher risk due to occupational or environmental factors. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42024567744 (accessible at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024567744).
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.