ArticleOccupational and environmental medicine1998
Time to pregnancy and exposure to pesticides in Danish farmers. ASCLEPIOS Study Group.
Article in Occupational and environmental medicine, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.
- Glyphosate and adverse pregnancy outcomes, a systematic review of observational studies.BMC public health · 2016Pooled it
- Non-cancer health effects of pesticides: systematic review and implications for family doctors.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2007Pooled it
- DDT exposure, work in agriculture, and time to pregnancy among farmworkers in California.Journal of occupational and environmental medicine · 2008Article
- Time to first pregnancy among women working in agricultural production.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2005Article
- Methodologic and statistical approaches to studying human fertility and environmental exposure.Environmental health perspectives · 2004Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCircumstantial evidence suggests that organic farmers may have higher sperm count than other men, but comprehensive epidemiological studies of male fecundity among farmers have never been carried out. A substantial increase of sperm count is expected to translate into a shorter time to pregnancy--the number of menstrual cycles or months it takes a couple to get pregnant from discontinuation of birth control. Toxicological effects on spermatogenesis in humans and animals have been described after exposure to several pesticides. The aim of this study was to examine time to pregnancy among farmers who used pesticides (traditional farmers) and farmers who did not (organic farmers).
methodsA total of 904 (84%) men, selected from the Danish Ministry of Agriculture lists of traditional and organic farmers, participated in telephone interviews. Information was collected on time to pregnancy for the youngest child, exposure to pesticides, and potential confounders.
resultsWith the discrete analogue of the Cox regression model (including potential confounders: male and female smoking, female age, parity, and contraceptive method), the fecundability ratio between traditional farmers who used pesticides and organic farmers was 1.03 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.75 to 1.40). In the group of farmers who sprayed with pesticides, none of the characteristics related to the use of pesticides could account for the variation in time to pregnancy.
conclusionsNo overall effect of pesticides on male fecundability was found in this retrospective study among Danish farmers. Also, we found no evidence of higher male fecundability in organic farmers.
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.