4.5 Review Publication with Expression of Concern

Glyphosate epidemiology expert panel review: a weight of evidence systematic review of the relationship between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or multiple myeloma (Publication with Expression of Concern. See vol. 48, pg. 912, 2018)

期刊

CRITICAL REVIEWS IN TOXICOLOGY
卷 46, 期 -, 页码 28-43

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10408444.2016.1214681

关键词

Glyphosate; non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; multiple myeloma; systematic reviews

资金

  1. Monsanto Company
  2. Monsanto Europe SA/NV
  3. Intertek Scientific & Regulatory Consultancy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We conducted a systematic review of the epidemiologic literature for glyphosate focusing on non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) and multiple myeloma (MM) - two cancers that were the focus of a recent review by an International Agency for Research on Cancer Working Group. Our approach was consistent with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews. We evaluated each relevant study according to a priori criteria for study quality: adequacy of study size, likelihood of confounding, potential for other biases and adequacy of the statistical analyses. Our evaluation included seven unique studies for NHL and four for MM, all but one of which were case control studies for each cancer. For NHL, the case-control studies were all limited by the potential for recall bias and the lack of adequate multivariate adjustment for multiple pesticide and other farming exposures. Only the Agricultural Health (cohort) Study met our a priori quality standards and this study found no evidence of an association between glyphosate and NHL. For MM, the case control studies shared the same limitations as noted for the NHL case-control studies and, in aggregate, the data were too sparse to enable an informed causal judgment. Overall, our review did not find support in the epidemiologic literature for a causal association between glyphosate and NHL or MM.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据