Literature DB >> 23215716

Anogenital distances in newborns and children from Spain and Greece: predictors, tracking and reliability.

Eleni Papadopoulou1, Marina Vafeiadi, Silvia Agramunt, Xavier Basagaña, Kleopatra Mathianaki, Polykseni Karakosta, Arianna Spanaki, Antonis Koutis, Leda Chatzi, Martine Vrijheid, Manolis Kogevinas.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Anogenital distance has been associated with prenatal exposure to chemicals with anti-androgenic effects. There are limited data in humans concerning descriptive patterns, predictors, and the reliability of measurement of anogenital distances. We examined anogenital distance measurements and their predictors in males and females and further estimated the reliability of these measurements.
METHODS: Anogenital distances were measured in repeated time periods among 352 newborns and 732 young children in two cohorts, one in Crete, Greece and one in Barcelona, Spain. Mixed effect models were used to estimate the between-children, between- and within-examiners variance, as well as the reliability coefficients.
RESULTS: Genitalia distances were longer in males than in females. Anogenital distances in both sexes increased rapidly from birth to 12 months, while the additional increase during the second year was small. Birthweight was associated with an increase of 1.9 mm/kg [95% CI 0.1, 3.8] (CI, confidence interval) in the anogenital distance measured from the anus to anterior base of the penis in newborn males, 2.9 mm/kg [95% CI 1.8, 3.9] in anoclitoral distance and 1.0 mm/kg [95% CI 0.0, 2.0] in anofourchettal distance in newborn females, after adjustment for gestational age. In children, body weight was the main predictor of all genitalia measurements. Moreover, anogenital distances at birth were associated with the corresponding distances at early childhood. High reliability coefficients (>90%) were found for all anogenital distances measurements in males and females.
CONCLUSIONS: Anogenital distances are strongly related to gestational age and birthweight and later, to growth. They track through early life and are highly reliable measures in both sexes.
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23215716     DOI: 10.1111/ppe.12022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol        ISSN: 0269-5022            Impact factor:   3.980


  18 in total

1.  Evidence for sexually dimorphic associations between maternal characteristics and anogenital distance, a marker of reproductive development.

Authors:  Emily S Barrett; Lauren E Parlett; J Bruce Redmon; Shanna H Swan
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2013-10-11       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  Exposure to prenatal life events stress is associated with masculinized play behavior in girls.

Authors:  Emily S Barrett; J Bruce Redmon; Christina Wang; Amy Sparks; Shanna H Swan
Journal:  Neurotoxicology       Date:  2014-01-07       Impact factor: 4.294

3.  Breastfeeding Duration and Anogenital Distance in 2-Year-Old Infants.

Authors:  Juan Antonio Ortega-García; Henry Andrés Olano-Soler; Ana Martínez-Álvarez; Ferran Campillo-López; Virtudes Gomariz-Peñalver; Jaime Mendiola-Olivares; Carlos Iglesias-Gómez; Arancha Escribano-Muñoz
Journal:  Breastfeed Med       Date:  2016-07-12       Impact factor: 1.817

4.  Anogenital distance and penile width measurements in The Infant Development and the Environment Study (TIDES): methods and predictors.

Authors:  Sheela Sathyanarayana; Richard Grady; J B Redmon; Kristy Ivicek; Emily Barrett; Sarah Janssen; Ruby Nguyen; Shanna H Swan
Journal:  J Pediatr Urol       Date:  2015-03-07       Impact factor: 1.830

5.  Anogenital Distance in Healthy Infants: Method-, Age- and Sex-related Reference Ranges.

Authors:  Margit Bistrup Fischer; Marie Lindhardt Ljubicic; Casper P Hagen; Ajay Thankamony; Ken Ong; Ieuan Hughes; Tina Kold Jensen; Katharina M Main; Jørgen Holm Petersen; Alexander S Busch; Emmie N Upners; Sheela Sathyanarayana; Shanna H Swan; Anders Juul
Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 5.958

6.  Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane exposure and anogenital distance in the Venda Health Examination of Mothers, Babies and their Environment (VHEMBE) birth cohort study, South Africa.

Authors:  M S Bornman; J Chevrier; S Rauch; M Crause; M Obida; S Sathyanarayana; D B Barr; B Eskenazi
Journal:  Andrology       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 3.842

7.  Anogenital distance as a phenotypic signature through infancy.

Authors:  Lærke Priskorn; Jørgen H Petersen; Niels Jørgensen; Henriette B Kyhl; Marianne S Andersen; Katharina M Main; Anna-Maria Andersson; Niels E Skakkebaek; Tina K Jensen
Journal:  Pediatr Res       Date:  2017-12-20       Impact factor: 3.756

Review 8.  Anogenital distance and its application in environmental health research.

Authors:  Chunhua Liu; Xijin Xu; Xia Huo
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2014-01-29       Impact factor: 4.223

9.  Anogenital distance is associated with semen quality but not reproductive hormones in 1106 young men from the general population.

Authors:  L Priskorn; A K Bang; L Nordkap; M Krause; J Mendiola; T K Jensen; A Juul; N E Skakkebaek; S H Swan; N Jørgensen
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2019-01-01       Impact factor: 6.918

Review 10.  Anogenital distance as a marker of androgen exposure in humans.

Authors:  A Thankamony; V Pasterski; K K Ong; C L Acerini; I A Hughes
Journal:  Andrology       Date:  2016-02-04       Impact factor: 3.842

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.