| Title |
Environmental Chemicals and Type 2 Diabetes: An Updated Systematic Review of the Epidemiologic Evidence
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Diabetes Reports, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11892-013-0432-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chin-Chi Kuo, Katherine Moon, Kristina A. Thayer, Ana Navas-Acien |
| Abstract |
The burden of diabetes is increasing globally. Identifying novel preventable risk factors is an urgent need. In 2011, the U.S. National Toxicological Program (NTP) conducted a workshop to evaluate the epidemiologic and experimental evidence on the relationship of environmental chemicals with obesity, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome. Although the evidence was insufficient to establish causality, the NTP workshop review identified an overall positive association between some environmental chemicals and diabetes. In the present systematic review, our objective was to summarize the epidemiological research published since the NTP workshop. We identified a total of 29 articles (7 on arsenic, 3 on cadmium, 2 on mercury, 11 on persistent organic pollutants, 3 on phthalates, and 4 on bisphenol A), including 7 prospective studies. Considering consistency, temporality, strength, dose-response relationship, and biological plausibility (confounding), we concluded that the evidence is suggestive but not sufficient for a relationship between arsenic and persistent organic pollutants and is insufficient for mercury, phthalates, and bisphenol A. For cadmium, the epidemiologic evidence does not seem to suggest an association with diabetes. Important research questions include the need for additional prospective studies and the evaluation of the dose-response relationship, the role of joint exposures, and effect modification with other comorbidities and genetic variants. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 210 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 206 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 28 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 10% |
| Other | 14 | 7% |
| Other | 47 | 22% |
| Unknown | 56 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 39 | 19% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 21 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 19 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 6% |
| Environmental Science | 13 | 6% |
| Other | 35 | 17% |
| Unknown | 70 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 July 2023.
All research outputs
#6,488,068
of 25,726,194 outputs
Outputs from Current Diabetes Reports
#319
of 1,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,090
of 224,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Diabetes Reports
#5
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,726,194 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,058 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 224,673 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.