CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 349Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances researchToxic Organic Pollutants ImpactEffects and risks of endocrine disrupting chemicals

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 120 of the 121 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Navigation Guide—Evidence-Based Medicine Meets Environmental Health: Systematic Review of Nonhuman Evidence for PFOA Effects on Fetal Growth

Open access
Koustas, Erica, Lam, Juleen, Sutton, Patrice, Johnson, Paula I., Atchley, Dylan S., Sen, Saunak, Robinson, Karen A., Axelrad, Daniel A., Woodruff, Tracey J.·2014·Environmental Health Perspectives
DOI 10.1289/ehp.1307177PMC PMC4181920
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract Background: In contrast to current methods of expert-based narrative review, the Navigation Guide is a systematic and transparent method for synthesizing environmental health research from multiple evidence streams. The Navigation Guide was developed to effectively and efficiently translate the available scientific evidence into timely prevention-oriented action. Objectives: We applied the Navigation Guide systematic review method to answer the question “Does fetal developmental exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) or its salts affect fetal growth in animals ?” and to rate the strength of the experimental animal evidence. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of the literature, applied prespecified criteria to the search results to identify relevant studies, extracted data from studies, obtained additional information from study authors, conducted meta-analyses, and rated the overall quality and strength of the evidence. Results: Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. From the meta-analysis of eight mouse gavage data sets, we estimated that exposure of pregnant mice to increasing concentrations of PFOA was associated with a change in mean pup birth weight of –0.023 g (95% CI: –0.029, –0.016) per 1-unit increase in dose (milligrams per kilogram body weight per day). The evidence, consisting of 15 mammalian and 6 nonmammalian studies, was rated as “moderate” and “low” quality, respectively. Conclusion: Based on this first application of the Navigation Guide methodology, we found sufficient evidence that fetal developmental exposure to PFOA reduces fetal growth in animals. Citation: Koustas E, Lam J, Sutton P, Johnson PI, Atchley DS, Sen S, Robinson KA, Axelrad DA, Woodruff TJ. 2014. The Navigation Guide—evidence-based medicine meets environmental health: systematic review of nonhuman evidence for PFOA effects on fetal growth. Environ Health Perspect 122:1015–1027; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1307177

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1289/ehp.1307177

Cites

120 of 120 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Flowchart for evaluating risk of bias, quality of evidence, and strength of evidence.
Figure 1 Flowchart for evaluating risk of bias, quality of evidence, and strength of evidence.CC0 · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Flowchart of the study-selection process.
Figure 2 Flowchart of the study-selection process.CC0 · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Summary of review authors’ risk of bias judgments (low, probably low, probably high, and high risk) for each risk of bias item for each included study (A) and given as percentages across all included studies (B), separated into mammalian (n = 15) and non­mammalian (n = 6) studies.
Figure 3 Summary of review authors’ risk of bias judgments (low, probably low, probably high, and high risk) for each risk of bias item for each included study (A) and given as percentages across all included studies (B), separated into mammalian (n = 15) and non­mammalian (n = 6) studies.CC0 · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Meta-analysis results from a two-step mixed-effects model using combined relevant mouse studies in which dams were treated with PFOA via gavage and progeny weight was measured at or soon after birth. Data are presented as the mean (95% CI) change in body weight (g) per 1-unit increase in dose (mg/kg BW/day). Each box represents the dose–response slope estimate for a study; the mid­point of the box is the slope estimated for that study, and the box area is proportional to the weight given to each study in the meta-analysis. The diamond is centered at the overall meta-analysis slope estimate. Wolf (2007) was split into two data sets: a) cross-foster (exposure on GDs 1–17), and b) windows of sensitivity (exposure groups for GDs 7–17, GDs 10–17, GDs 13–17, and GDs 15–17).
Figure 4 Meta-analysis results from a two-step mixed-effects model using combined relevant mouse studies in which dams were treated with PFOA via gavage and progeny weight was measured at or soon after birth. Data are presented as the mean (95% CI) change in body weight (g) per 1-unit increase in dose (mg/kg BW/day). Each box represents the dose–response slope estimate for a study; the mid­point of the box is the slope estimated for that study, and the box area is proportional to the weight given to each study in the meta-analysis. The diamond is centered at the overall meta-analysis slope estimate. Wolf (2007) was split into two data sets: a) cross-foster (exposure on GDs 1–17), and b) windows of sensitivity (exposure groups for GDs 7–17, GDs 10–17, GDs 13–17, and GDs 15–17).CC0 · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Combined scatter plots of response for each tested dose of PFOA for all included mammalian studies. Response was measured as the percentage of weight change for progeny (A) near-term or (B) at birth. Each color represents a different study (separated by dashed lines), and each symbol represents a different species or exposure route category. Multiple symbols of the same color represent responses at multiple tested doses within the same study. Doses are given in mg/kg BW/day unless otherwise specified. For each study, doses decrease as the y-axis increases and are scaled appropriately (i.e., larger vertical gaps indicate larger gaps between doses); the minimum dose for all studies is zero. See Supplemental Material, Tables S46 and S47, for the 95% CIs for the point estimates shown in the figure. aStudy split into two data sets: a) cross-foster (exposure on GDs 1–17), and b) windows of sensitivity (exposure groups for GDs 7–17, GDs 10–17, GDs 13–17, and GDs 15–17). *(Within symbols), p < 0.05 compared with the control group.
Figure 5 Combined scatter plots of response for each tested dose of PFOA for all included mammalian studies. Response was measured as the percentage of weight change for progeny (A) near-term or (B) at birth. Each color represents a different study (separated by dashed lines), and each symbol represents a different species or exposure route category. Multiple symbols of the same color represent responses at multiple tested doses within the same study. Doses are given in mg/kg BW/day unless otherwise specified. For each study, doses decrease as the y-axis increases and are scaled appropriately (i.e., larger vertical gaps indicate larger gaps between doses); the minimum dose for all studies is zero. See Supplemental Material, Tables S46 and S47, for the 95% CIs for the point estimates shown in the figure. aStudy split into two data sets: a) cross-foster (exposure on GDs 1–17), and b) windows of sensitivity (exposure groups for GDs 7–17, GDs 10–17, GDs 13–17, and GDs 15–17). *(Within symbols), p < 0.05 compared with the control group.CC0 · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Combined scatter plots of response for each tested dose of PFOA for all included non­mammalian studies. Response was measured as the percentage of (A) weight change and (B) length change. Each color represents a different study (separated by dashed lines), and each symbol represents a different species or exposure route category. Multiple symbols of the same color represent responses at multiple tested doses within the same study. For each study, doses decrease as the y-axis increases and are scaled appropriately (i.e., larger vertical gaps indicate larger gaps between doses); the minimum dose for all studies is zero. See Supplemental Material, Tables S48 and S49, for the 95% CIs for the point estimates shown in the figure. aStudy split into two data sets based on time of outcome measurement: a) embryonic day 19, and b) 16–24 hr posthatching. *(Within symbols), p < 0.05 compared with the control group.
Figure 6 Combined scatter plots of response for each tested dose of PFOA for all included non­mammalian studies. Response was measured as the percentage of (A) weight change and (B) length change. Each color represents a different study (separated by dashed lines), and each symbol represents a different species or exposure route category. Multiple symbols of the same color represent responses at multiple tested doses within the same study. For each study, doses decrease as the y-axis increases and are scaled appropriately (i.e., larger vertical gaps indicate larger gaps between doses); the minimum dose for all studies is zero. See Supplemental Material, Tables S48 and S49, for the 95% CIs for the point estimates shown in the figure. aStudy split into two data sets based on time of outcome measurement: a) embryonic day 19, and b) 16–24 hr posthatching. *(Within symbols), p < 0.05 compared with the control group.CC0 · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 121 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ, eds. 2011. Chapter 7: Selecting studies and collecting data. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0 (Higgins JPT, Green S, eds).Available: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org [accessed 7 February 2013].

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 349

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Koustas, E., Lam, J., Sutton, P., Johnson, P. I., Atchley, D. S., Sen, S., Robinson, K. A., Axelrad, D. A., & Woodruff, T. J.
Affiliations
  • Environmental Protection Agency (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Koustas, Erica
ORCID
Venue
Environmental Health Perspectives
Publisher
American Chemical Society (ACS)
Published
2014-06-25
Volume
122
Issue
10
Pages
1015-1027
ISSN
  • 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-9924
DOI
10.1289/ehp.1307177
PMC
PMC4181920
OpenAlex
W1969835924
Cited by
349
References
121
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 60 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 42 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 10
FWCI
3.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Environmental Health Perspectives (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (ES018135, P01ES022841, ES022841, P20ES018135)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances research
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Toxic Organic Pollutants Impact
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Effects and risks of endocrine disrupting chemicals
Keywords
perfluorooctanoic acid, fetal growth, prenatal exposure, animal studies, birth weight, evidence synthesis, perfluorinated compounds, developmental toxicity
MeSH terms
Animals, Birth Weight, Caprylates, Environmental Health, Environmental Pollutants, Female, Fluorocarbons, Pregnancy, Evidence-Based Medicine, Fetal Development, Mice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review