La Medicina del lavoro · 2020
Exposure to glyphosate and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and multiple myeloma: an updated meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Donato Francesca, Pira Enrico, Ciocan Catalina, Boffetta Paolo
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies on the association between occupational exposure to glyphosate and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and multiple myeloma (MM).
METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of the literature, and identified 18 relevant publications, from which we extracted results from seven non-overlapping studies of NHL and three of MM. We performed random-effects meta-analyses for ever-exposure to glyphosate, dose-response, and risk of specific NHL subtypes.
RESULTS: The meta-relative risk (RR) of NHL was 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-1.21), that of MM was 1.04 (95% CI 0.67-1.41). The meta-RR of NHL for highest category of exposure was 1.49 (95% CI 0.37-2.61; 3 studies). The meta-RR for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) was 1.31 (95% CI 0.93-1.75); that for follicular lymphoma was 0.82 (95% CI 0.93-1.70), and that for chronic lymphocytic leukemia was 0.85 (95% CI 0.20-1.49). There was indication of publication bias for studies on NHL.
CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis provided no overall evidence of an increased risk for both NHL and MM in subjects occupationally exposed to glyphosate. In secondary analyses we detected a small increase in risk for the category with highest level of exposure as well as for DLBCL. The evidence of publication bias suggests caution in the interpretation of the results.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of the literature, and identified 18 relevant publications, from which we extracted results from seven non-overlapping studies of NHL and three of MM. We performed random-effects meta-analyses for ever-exposure to glyphosate, dose-response, and risk of specific NHL subtypes.
RESULTS: The meta-relative risk (RR) of NHL was 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-1.21), that of MM was 1.04 (95% CI 0.67-1.41). The meta-RR of NHL for highest category of exposure was 1.49 (95% CI 0.37-2.61; 3 studies). The meta-RR for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) was 1.31 (95% CI 0.93-1.75); that for follicular lymphoma was 0.82 (95% CI 0.93-1.70), and that for chronic lymphocytic leukemia was 0.85 (95% CI 0.20-1.49). There was indication of publication bias for studies on NHL.
CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis provided no overall evidence of an increased risk for both NHL and MM in subjects occupationally exposed to glyphosate. In secondary analyses we detected a small increase in risk for the category with highest level of exposure as well as for DLBCL. The evidence of publication bias suggests caution in the interpretation of the results.