Johanna R Jahnke, Kyle P Messier, Melissa Lowe, Anne Marie Jukic
{"title":"生育研究中的环境空气污染暴露评估:生殖流行病学家的系统综述和指南。","authors":"Johanna R Jahnke, Kyle P Messier, Melissa Lowe, Anne Marie Jukic","doi":"10.1007/s40471-022-00290-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>We reviewed the exposure assessments of ambient air pollution used in studies of fertility, fecundability, and pregnancy loss.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Comprehensive literature searches were performed in the PUBMED, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. Of 168 total studies, 45 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. We find that 69% of fertility and pregnancy loss studies have used one-dimensional proximity models or surface monitor data, while only 35% have used the improved models, such as land-use regression models (4%), dispersion/chemical transport models (11%), or fusion models (20%). No published studies have used personal air monitors.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>While air pollution exposure models have vastly improved over the past decade from simple, one-dimensional distance or air monitor data, to models that incorporate physiochemical properties leading to better predictive accuracy, precision, and increased spatiotemporal variability and resolution, the fertility literature has yet to fully incorporate these new methods. We provide descriptions of each of these air pollution exposure models and assess the strengths and limitations of each model, while summarizing the findings of the literature on ambient air pollution and fertility that apply each method.</p>","PeriodicalId":48527,"journal":{"name":"Current Epidemiology Reports","volume":"9 2","pages":"87-107"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9229606/pdf/nihms-1810788.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ambient air pollution exposure assessments in fertility studies: A systematic review and guide for reproductive epidemiologists.\",\"authors\":\"Johanna R Jahnke, Kyle P Messier, Melissa Lowe, Anne Marie Jukic\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40471-022-00290-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>We reviewed the exposure assessments of ambient air pollution used in studies of fertility, fecundability, and pregnancy loss.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Comprehensive literature searches were performed in the PUBMED, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. Of 168 total studies, 45 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. We find that 69% of fertility and pregnancy loss studies have used one-dimensional proximity models or surface monitor data, while only 35% have used the improved models, such as land-use regression models (4%), dispersion/chemical transport models (11%), or fusion models (20%). No published studies have used personal air monitors.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>While air pollution exposure models have vastly improved over the past decade from simple, one-dimensional distance or air monitor data, to models that incorporate physiochemical properties leading to better predictive accuracy, precision, and increased spatiotemporal variability and resolution, the fertility literature has yet to fully incorporate these new methods. We provide descriptions of each of these air pollution exposure models and assess the strengths and limitations of each model, while summarizing the findings of the literature on ambient air pollution and fertility that apply each method.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48527,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Epidemiology Reports\",\"volume\":\"9 2\",\"pages\":\"87-107\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9229606/pdf/nihms-1810788.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Epidemiology Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40471-022-00290-z\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Epidemiology Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40471-022-00290-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
综述目的:我们回顾了环境空气污染暴露评估在生育能力、生育能力和妊娠损失研究中的应用。最近的发现:在PUBMED、Web of Science和Scopus数据库中进行了全面的文献搜索。在168项研究中,有45项符合入选标准,纳入了本综述。我们发现69%的生育和妊娠损失研究使用了一维接近模型或地表监测数据,而只有35%的研究使用了改进的模型,如土地利用回归模型(4%)、分散/化学运输模型(11%)或融合模型(20%)。没有发表的研究使用个人空气监测仪。摘要:虽然空气污染暴露模型在过去十年中有了很大的改进,从简单的一维距离或空气监测数据,到包含物理化学特性的模型,从而提高了预测的准确性和精度,并增加了时空变异性和分辨率,但生育文献尚未完全纳入这些新方法。我们提供了这些空气污染暴露模型的描述,并评估了每个模型的优势和局限性,同时总结了应用每种方法的环境空气污染和生育力文献的发现。
Ambient air pollution exposure assessments in fertility studies: A systematic review and guide for reproductive epidemiologists.
Purpose of review: We reviewed the exposure assessments of ambient air pollution used in studies of fertility, fecundability, and pregnancy loss.
Recent findings: Comprehensive literature searches were performed in the PUBMED, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. Of 168 total studies, 45 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. We find that 69% of fertility and pregnancy loss studies have used one-dimensional proximity models or surface monitor data, while only 35% have used the improved models, such as land-use regression models (4%), dispersion/chemical transport models (11%), or fusion models (20%). No published studies have used personal air monitors.
Summary: While air pollution exposure models have vastly improved over the past decade from simple, one-dimensional distance or air monitor data, to models that incorporate physiochemical properties leading to better predictive accuracy, precision, and increased spatiotemporal variability and resolution, the fertility literature has yet to fully incorporate these new methods. We provide descriptions of each of these air pollution exposure models and assess the strengths and limitations of each model, while summarizing the findings of the literature on ambient air pollution and fertility that apply each method.