4.3 Review

Pesticide exposure and lung function: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE-OXFORD
Volume 70, Issue 1, Pages 14-23

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/occmed/kqz161

Keywords

Lung function; pesticides; systematic review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Epidemiological studies have reported associations between pesticide exposure and respiratory health effects, but the quantitative impact on lung function is unclear. To fill this gap, we undertook a systematic review of the available literature on the association between pesticide exposure and pulmonary function. Aims To examine all available literature regarding the relationship between occupational and environmental exposure to pesticides and lung function. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science databases to 1 October 2017 without any date or language restrictions using a combination of MeSH terms and free text for 'pesticide exposure' and 'lung function'. We included studies that met the criteria of our research protocol registered in PROSPERO, and we assessed their quality using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results Of 2356 articles retrieved, 56 articles were included in the systematic review and pooled in meta-analyses for forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC), FVC and FEV1. There was tentative evidence that exposure to cholinesterase (ChE) inhibiting pesticides reduced FEV1/IFVC and no evidence that paraquat exposure affected lung function in farmers. Conclusions Respiratory surveillance should be enhanced in those exposed to ChE-inhibiting pesticides which reduced FEV1/FVC according to the meta-analysis. Our study is limited by heterogeneity between studies due to different types of exposure assessment to pesticides and potential confounders. Further studies with a more accurate exposure assessment are suggested.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available