23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Relationship between Prenatal or Postnatal Exposure to Pesticides and Obesity: A Systematic Review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In recent years, the worldwide prevalence of overweight and obesity among adults and children has dramatically increased. The conventional model regarding the onset of obesity is based on an imbalance between energy intake and expenditure. However, other possible environmental factors involved, such as the exposure to chemicals like pesticides, cannot be discarded. These compounds could act as endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDC) that may interfere with hormone activity related to several mechanisms involved in body weight control. The main objective of this study was to systematically review the data provided in the scientific literature for a possible association between prenatal and postnatal exposure to pesticides and obesity in offspring. A total of 25 human and 9 animal studies were analyzed. The prenatal, perinatal, and postnatal exposure to organophosphate, organochlorine, pyrethroid, neonicotinoid, and carbamate, as well as a combined pesticide exposure was reviewed. This systematic review reveals that the effects of pesticide exposure on body weight are mostly inconclusive, finding conflicting results in both humans and experimental animals. The outcomes reviewed are dependent on many factors, including dosage and route of administration, species, sex, and treatment duration. More research is needed to effectively evaluate the impact of the combined effects of different pesticides on human health.

          Related collections

          Most cited references121

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

          Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

            Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool for animal studies

              Background Systematic Reviews (SRs) of experimental animal studies are not yet common practice, but awareness of the merits of conducting such SRs is steadily increasing. As animal intervention studies differ from randomized clinical trials (RCT) in many aspects, the methodology for SRs of clinical trials needs to be adapted and optimized for animal intervention studies. The Cochrane Collaboration developed a Risk of Bias (RoB) tool to establish consistency and avoid discrepancies in assessing the methodological quality of RCTs. A similar initiative is warranted in the field of animal experimentation. Methods We provide an RoB tool for animal intervention studies (SYRCLE’s RoB tool). This tool is based on the Cochrane RoB tool and has been adjusted for aspects of bias that play a specific role in animal intervention studies. To enhance transparency and applicability, we formulated signalling questions to facilitate judgment. Results The resulting RoB tool for animal studies contains 10 entries. These entries are related to selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias, reporting bias and other biases. Half these items are in agreement with the items in the Cochrane RoB tool. Most of the variations between the two tools are due to differences in design between RCTs and animal studies. Shortcomings in, or unfamiliarity with, specific aspects of experimental design of animal studies compared to clinical studies also play a role. Conclusions SYRCLE’s RoB tool is an adapted version of the Cochrane RoB tool. Widespread adoption and implementation of this tool will facilitate and improve critical appraisal of evidence from animal studies. This may subsequently enhance the efficiency of translating animal research into clinical practice and increase awareness of the necessity of improving the methodological quality of animal studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                ijerph
                International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
                MDPI
                1661-7827
                1660-4601
                04 July 2021
                July 2021
                : 18
                : 13
                : 7170
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Psychobiology, Faculty of Psychology, National Distance Education University (UNED), 28040 Madrid, Spain; bcarrillo@ 123456psi.uned.es (B.C.); pcollado@ 123456psi.uned.es (P.C.)
                [2 ]Joint Research Institute-UNED-Instituto de Salud Carlos III (IMIENS), 28029 Madrid, Spain; fmartin@ 123456isciii.es
                [3 ]Department of Psychology and Health Research Center (CEINSA), Almeria University, 04120 Almeria, Spain; anamercar@ 123456gmail.com (A.M.); cpf603@ 123456ual.es (C.P.-F.); fsanchez@ 123456ual.es (F.S.-S.)
                [4 ]Research in Neurobehavior and Health (NEUROLAB), Universitat Rovira i Virgili, 43007 Tarragona, Spain; judit.biosca@ 123456urv.cat (J.B.-B.); mariateresa.colomina@ 123456urv.cat (M.T.C.)
                [5 ]Department of Psychology and Research Center for Behavior Assessment (CRAMC), Universitat Rovira i Virgili, 43007 Tarragona, Spain
                [6 ]National School of Public Health, Institute of Health Carlos III, University Institute of Research-UNED-Institute of Health Carlos III (IMIENS), 28029 Madrid, Spain
                [7 ]Laboratory of Neuroscience, Department of Psychology, Instituto de Neurociencias del Principado de Asturias (INEUROPA), University of Oviedo, 33003 Oviedo, Spain; jarias@ 123456uniovi.es
                [8 ]Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Principado de Asturias (ISPA), 33006 Oviedo, Spain
                Author notes
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5323-6602
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7393-3675
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7386-8271
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5619-4874
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2190-2006
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2925-6806
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0983-8654
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4749-5453
                Article
                ijerph-18-07170
                10.3390/ijerph18137170
                8295932
                34281107
                ffb0a64b-8ea6-4ca6-ba02-4b8e782d1dea
                © 2021 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 04 June 2021
                : 30 June 2021
                Categories
                Review

                Public health
                obesity,pesticides,organophosphate,organochlorine,chlorpyrifos,carbamates,pyrethroids,neonicotinoids

                Comments

                Comment on this article