FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2054808224> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2054808224 abstract "Vol. 112, No. 11 PerspectivesOpen AccessStudying Human Fertility and Environmental Exposuresis companion ofStudying Human Fertility: Response to Slama et al. and Joffe et al. Rémy Slama, Béatrice Ducot, Niels Keiding, and Jean Bouyer Rémy Slama INSERM and INED (French National Institute for Health and Medical Research and the French National Institute for Demographic Studies), Unit 569, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France, E-mail: Search for more papers by this author , Béatrice Ducot INSERM and INED (French National Institute for Health and Medical Research and the French National Institute for Demographic Studies), Unit 569, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France, E-mail: Search for more papers by this author , Niels Keiding Department of Biostatistics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark Search for more papers by this author , and Jean Bouyer INSERM and INED (French National Institute for Health and Medical Research and the French National Institute for Demographic Studies), Unit 569, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France Search for more papers by this author Published:1 August 2004https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.112-1247502AboutSectionsPDF ToolsDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InReddit In their review of approaches to studying the influence of environmental exposures on human fecundity, Tingen et al. (2004) compared several ways of assessing fecundity.Fecundity—the probability of pregnancy in couples having regular intercourse without contraception—can be assessed by applying appropriate statistical approaches to time-to-pregnancy (TTP) data. Tingen et al. (2004) provided a thorough presentation of the detailed prospective approach to assess TTP. We agree that advantages of this approach, in which daily urine samples are collected, include allowing the estimation of the daily probability of pregnancy within a menstrual cycle and studying the early survival of the embryo; however, we have reservations about the authors’ conclusion that the detailed prospective approach should be seen as the gold standard for studying the effects of environmental exposures on fecundity.We believe that prospective TTP studies, whether detailed or not, have one main limitation, which lies in the difficulty of defining precisely the target population: These studies are often based on the inclusion of couples soon planning to attempt conception or to stop using contraceptive methods. In our opinion, this population is ill-defined and lacks a sampling frame, which makes the estimation of participation rates difficult. Indeed, many published detailed prospective TTP studies had unreported or low participation rates (Buck et al. 2004), opening the door for selection biases. We also doubt that these “super pregnancy planners,” who program their pregnancy attempts months ahead, are representative of the general population. For example, detailed prospective TTP studies have sometimes included couples with higher-than-average educational level (Wilcox et al. 1988) or those who use natural family planning methods not widely used (Dunson et al. 2002). These characteristics may be associated with the probability of pregnancy and with the environmental exposures of interest, thus resulting in possible biases.These limitations of the prospective approach do not justify a preference for retrospective studies. As pointed out by Tingen et al. (2004), the exclusion of infertile couples in most retrospective studies is indeed of particular concern; it reduces statistical power and leads to underestimation of the effect of the environmental exposure of interest (Slama et al. 2004).The current duration approach, another approach not mentioned by Tingen et al. (2004), makes it possible to include infertile couples without resorting to detailed prospective studies. The current duration approach relies on the inclusion of couples currently trying to conceive or who are having intercourse without contraception (Keiding et al. 2002; Olsen and Andersen 1999). The recruited couples are asked how long they have been having unprotected sexual intercourse. Follow-up of these couples is not required (Keiding et al. 2002), but it is possible to obtain information on the occurrence of a pregnancy. In this case, the approach is based on principles from the case–cohort design (Olsen and Andersen 1999).In the current duration approach, data on the frequency of sexual intercourse, the duration of the menstrual cycle during the attempt at pregnancy, and environmental exposures can be collected with virtually no recall bias. The collection of urine or other biologic samples is possible, at least from the date of inclusion; that is, some time after cessation of contraceptive use. The advantage of the current duration approach is that the inclusion criterion (currently having sexual intercourse without contraception) is more clear-cut than that of the prospective approach. This approach thus has a clearly defined sampling frame. We are currently testing this approach on a representative population of French women 18–45 years of age.The four approaches to assessing TTP are based on different inclusion schemes. The retrospective approach is based on the inclusion of couples who already had a pregnancy; prospective approaches (detailed and not) are most often based on the inclusion of couples who will soon discontinue contraceptive use; and the current duration approach is based on the inclusion of couples currently trying to conceive. We believe that none of these methods can currently be considered a gold standard. In particular, unlike Tingen et al. (2004), we do not think that the potential bias from the exclusion of pregnancies occurring during contraceptive use (Baird et al. 1994) is specific to the retrospective approach, because prospective (and current duration) studies seldom include couples using contraceptive methods.Instead, we believe that the existence of new, alternative approaches should provoke comparative studies, leaving room for debate before conclusions are drawn about which approach is preferable for a given purpose.ReferencesBaird DD, Weinberg CR, Schwingl P, Wilcox AJ. 1994. Selection bias associated with contraceptive practice in time-to-pregnancy studies. Ann NY Acad Sci 709:156-1648154699. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarBuck GM, Lynch CD, Stanford JB, Sweeney AM, Schieve LA, Rockett JCet al.. 2004. Prospective pregnancy study designs for assessing reproductive and developmental toxicants. Environ Health Perspect 112:79-8614698935. Link, Google ScholarDunson DB, Colombo B, Baird DD. 2002. Changes with age in the level and duration of fertility in the menstrual cycle. Hum Reprod 17:1399-140311980771. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarKeiding N, Kvist K, Hartvig H, Tvede M, Juul S. 2002. Estimating time to pregnancy from current durations in a cross-sectional sample. Biostatistics 3:565-57812933598. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarOlsen J, Andersen PK. 1999. We should monitor human fecundity, but how? A suggestion for a new method that may also be used to identify determinants of low fecundity. Epidemiology 10:419-42110401877. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarSlama R, Jensen TK, Scheike T, Ducot B, Spira A, Keiding N. 2004. How would a decline in sperm concentration over time influence the probability of pregnancy?Epidemiology 15:458-46515232407. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarTingen C, Stanford JB, Dunson DB. 2004. Methodologic and statistical approaches to studying human fertility and environmental exposure. Environ Health Perspect 112:87-9314698936. Link, Google ScholarWilcox AJ, Weinberg CR, O’Connor JF, Baird DD, Schlatterer JP, Canfield REet al.. 1988. Incidence of early loss of pregnancy. N Engl J Med 319:189-1943393170. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRelated articlesStudying Human Fertility: Response to Slama et al. and Joffe et al.1 August 2004Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 112, No. 11 August 2004Metrics About Article Metrics Publication History Originally published1 August 2004Published in print1 August 2004 Financial disclosuresPDF download License information EHP is an open-access journal published with support from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health. All content is public domain unless otherwise noted. Note to readers with disabilities EHP strives to ensure that all journal content is accessible to all readers. However, some figures and Supplemental Material published in EHP articles may not conform to 508 standards due to the complexity of the information being presented. If you need assistance accessing journal content, please contact [email protected]. Our staff will work with you to assess and meet your accessibility needs within 3 working days." @default.
• W2054808224 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2054808224 creator A5008438332 @default.
• W2054808224 creator A5026718570 @default.
• W2054808224 creator A5031925749 @default.
• W2054808224 creator A5063808596 @default.
• W2054808224 date "2004-08-01" @default.
• W2054808224 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W2054808224 title "Studying Human Fertility and Environmental Exposures" @default.
• W2054808224 cites W2028278391 @default.
• W2054808224 cites W2034406413 @default.
• W2054808224 cites W2047147484 @default.
• W2054808224 cites W2067332971 @default.
• W2054808224 cites W2077560599 @default.
• W2054808224 cites W2106181357 @default.
• W2054808224 cites W2136562955 @default.
• W2054808224 cites W2322561651 @default.
• W2054808224 cites W3010487775 @default.
• W2054808224 doi "https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.112-1247502" @default.
• W2054808224 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/1247502" @default.
• W2054808224 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15289173" @default.
• W2054808224 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W2054808224 type Work @default.
• W2054808224 sameAs 2054808224 @default.
• W2054808224 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2054808224 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2054808224 hasAuthorship W2054808224A5008438332 @default.
• W2054808224 hasAuthorship W2054808224A5026718570 @default.
• W2054808224 hasAuthorship W2054808224A5031925749 @default.
• W2054808224 hasAuthorship W2054808224A5063808596 @default.
• W2054808224 hasBestOaLocation W20548082241 @default.
• W2054808224 hasConcept C2908647359 @default.
• W2054808224 hasConcept C2994448600 @default.
• W2054808224 hasConcept C518429986 @default.
• W2054808224 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2054808224 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2054808224 hasConcept C99454951 @default.
• W2054808224 hasConceptScore W2054808224C2908647359 @default.
• W2054808224 hasConceptScore W2054808224C2994448600 @default.
• W2054808224 hasConceptScore W2054808224C518429986 @default.
• W2054808224 hasConceptScore W2054808224C71924100 @default.
• W2054808224 hasConceptScore W2054808224C86803240 @default.
• W2054808224 hasConceptScore W2054808224C99454951 @default.
• W2054808224 hasIssue "11" @default.
• W2054808224 hasLocation W20548082241 @default.
• W2054808224 hasLocation W20548082242 @default.
• W2054808224 hasLocation W20548082243 @default.
• W2054808224 hasLocation W20548082244 @default.
• W2054808224 hasLocation W20548082245 @default.
• W2054808224 hasOpenAccess W2054808224 @default.
• W2054808224 hasPrimaryLocation W20548082241 @default.
• W2054808224 hasRelatedWork W2009965771 @default.
• W2054808224 hasRelatedWork W2202760190 @default.
• W2054808224 hasRelatedWork W2284485589 @default.
• W2054808224 hasRelatedWork W2472014328 @default.
• W2054808224 hasRelatedWork W2480753868 @default.
• W2054808224 hasRelatedWork W2486280286 @default.
• W2054808224 hasRelatedWork W2503274202 @default.
• W2054808224 hasRelatedWork W2548870266 @default.
• W2054808224 hasRelatedWork W4231073150 @default.
• W2054808224 hasRelatedWork W4256649493 @default.
• W2054808224 hasVolume "112" @default.
• W2054808224 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2054808224 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2054808224 magId "2054808224" @default.
• W2054808224 workType "article" @default.