Kristen Upson1. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Recent studies of environmental chemicals and endometriosis were critically evaluated from the epidemiologic perspective to identify aspects of study design and analyses that may contribute to discrepant results across studies. RECENT FINDINGS: Of the 29 studies reviewed, 12 studies used new approaches to population-based sampling. The remaining studies were conducted primarily among patients undergoing pelvic surgery; controls may not represent the exposure experience of the underlying study base, resulting in biased estimates of associations. Most studies used biologic specimens collected near diagnosis and varied in analytic approaches to minimize bias. Few studies investigated ovarian, deep-infiltrating, and peritoneal endometriosis presentations separately. SUMMARY: Recommendations to move the field forward include: (1) control selection from a defined study base, (2) exposure characterization during the etiologically-relevant window, (3) employment of best practices to minimize bias in analyses, and (4) separate consideration of endometriosis presentations that may be etiologically-distinct entities.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Recent studies of environmental chemicals and endometriosis were critically evaluated from the epidemiologic perspective to identify aspects of study design and analyses that may contribute to discrepant results across studies. RECENT FINDINGS: Of the 29 studies reviewed, 12 studies used new approaches to population-based sampling. The remaining studies were conducted primarily among patients undergoing pelvic surgery; controls may not represent the exposure experience of the underlying study base, resulting in biased estimates of associations. Most studies used biologic specimens collected near diagnosis and varied in analytic approaches to minimize bias. Few studies investigated ovarian, deep-infiltrating, and peritoneal endometriosis presentations separately. SUMMARY: Recommendations to move the field forward include: (1) control selection from a defined study base, (2) exposure characterization during the etiologically-relevant window, (3) employment of best practices to minimize bias in analyses, and (4) separate consideration of endometriosis presentations that may be etiologically-distinct entities.
Authors: Laura N Vandenberg; Theo Colborn; Tyrone B Hayes; Jerrold J Heindel; David R Jacobs; Duk-Hee Lee; Toshi Shioda; Ana M Soto; Frederick S vom Saal; Wade V Welshons; R Thomas Zoeller; John Peterson Myers Journal: Endocr Rev Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 19.871
Authors: Germaine M Buck Louis; C Matthew Peterson; Zhen Chen; Mary L Hediger; Mary S Croughan; Rajeshwari Sundaram; Joseph B Stanford; Victor Y Fujimoto; Michael W Varner; Linda C Giudice; Anne Kennedy; Liping Sun; Qian Wu; Kurunthachalam Kannan Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Germaine M Buck Louis; Mary L Hediger; C Matthew Peterson; Mary Croughan; Rajeshwari Sundaram; Joseph Stanford; Zhen Chen; Victor Y Fujimoto; Michael W Varner; Ann Trumble; Linda C Giudice Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Bradford L Therrell; W Harry Hannon; Donald B Bailey; Edward B Goldman; Jana Monaco; Bent Norgaard-Pedersen; Sharon F Terry; Alissa Johnson; R Rodney Howell Journal: Genet Med Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Enrique F Schisterman; Brian W Whitcomb; Germaine M Buck Louis; Thomas A Louis Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Shruthi Mahalingaiah; Jaime E Hart; Francine Laden; Ann Aschengrau; Stacey A Missmer Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2013-11-13 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Sander Greenland; Stephen J Senn; Kenneth J Rothman; John B Carlin; Charles Poole; Steven N Goodman; Douglas G Altman Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2016-05-21 Impact factor: 8.082