2023
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2023.108076
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Prenatal exposure to ambient air pollutants and congenital heart defects: An umbrella review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 123 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is worth noting that although embryonic mortality occurred after ZnO NPs treatment, there was no statistically significant difference in mortality rate between ZnO NPs treatment group and control group, which indicated that the negative impact of ZnO NPs exposure on embryonic development mainly manifests as teratogenicity rather than lethality under the experimental conditions of this study. The above result is consistent with the findings of previous studies, which have confirmed the strong association between environmental exposure to nanoparticles during pregnancy and adverse pregnancy outcomes, including low birth weight and preterm birth (Dadvand et al 2013 ; Pedersen et al 2013 ), risks of adverse pregnancy (Gómez-Roig et al 2021 ; Yu et al 2022 ), cardiovascular disease (Kim et al 2020 ; Michel et al 2023 ), respiratory problems (Bharadwaj et al 2016 ; Hehua et al 2017 ) and neurodevelopmental changes (Lertxundi et al 2019 ; Song et al 2021 ; Sunyer and Dadvand 2019 ). In addition, studies have confirmed that compared with the peri-implantation period of pregnancy, maternal mice in the organogenesis period are more susceptible to the effects of ZnO NPs, potentially leading to embryotoxicity (Teng et al 2020 ).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…It is worth noting that although embryonic mortality occurred after ZnO NPs treatment, there was no statistically significant difference in mortality rate between ZnO NPs treatment group and control group, which indicated that the negative impact of ZnO NPs exposure on embryonic development mainly manifests as teratogenicity rather than lethality under the experimental conditions of this study. The above result is consistent with the findings of previous studies, which have confirmed the strong association between environmental exposure to nanoparticles during pregnancy and adverse pregnancy outcomes, including low birth weight and preterm birth (Dadvand et al 2013 ; Pedersen et al 2013 ), risks of adverse pregnancy (Gómez-Roig et al 2021 ; Yu et al 2022 ), cardiovascular disease (Kim et al 2020 ; Michel et al 2023 ), respiratory problems (Bharadwaj et al 2016 ; Hehua et al 2017 ) and neurodevelopmental changes (Lertxundi et al 2019 ; Song et al 2021 ; Sunyer and Dadvand 2019 ). In addition, studies have confirmed that compared with the peri-implantation period of pregnancy, maternal mice in the organogenesis period are more susceptible to the effects of ZnO NPs, potentially leading to embryotoxicity (Teng et al 2020 ).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…It is interesting to note that others have evaluated systematic reviews of environmental health studies (notably on air pollution and reproductive and child health) from a methodological point of view. 12 After examining no less than 177 systematic reviews, the authors found that only 18 of these used some kind of evidence grading system. A wide variety of approaches and systems was identified, effectively making it impossible to draw firm conclusions about these methods' validity and results.…”
Section: Reviewing Umbrella Reviews Of Systematic Reviews Of Original...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Methodological weaknesses specific to assessing evidence related to environment exposures [ 40 , 41 ], and specifically ambient air pollution [ 42 ], and pregnancy outcomes [ 43 , 44 ], were previously identified among systematic reviews, particularly related to assessing internal validity and a lack of transparent evidence grading methodologies. Because systematic review methodologies were primarily developed for clinical trials, their suitability for evaluating evidence from observational/ environmental health, and how these methods can best be adapted, has been debated [ 14 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%