Evidence Hub

Association between Endocrine Disruptors and Surgical Congenital Malformations: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Bernardo NG, Natalia AG

Journal of pediatric surgery, 2026

1 citation

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Prenatal exposure to endocrine disruptors (EDs) represents a growing public health concern due to its potential association with congenital malformations requiring pediatric surgical intervention. The ubiquity of these chemicals in modern environments and their ability to interfere with normal hormonal development during critical fetal windows raises significant concerns for pediatric surgeons. This systematic review was registered prospectively in PROSPERO (CRD420251158778).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and gray literature from 2010-2025 for observational studies evaluating prenatal exposure to phthalates, bisphenols, perfluorinated compounds (PFAS), and organochlorines, with outcomes of surgical congenital malformations. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and GRADE methodology. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed using R software.

RESULTS

Of 4,121 studies identified, 66 met inclusion criteria (total population: 35,732). According to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, 42 studies (64%) had high quality (≥7 points), 18 (27%) moderate quality (5-6 points), and 6 (9%) low quality (<5 points). Significant associations were found between ED exposure and hypospadias (pooled OR: 2.21, 95% CI: 1.15-3.27; I2=65.4%, p=0.003), cryptorchidism (OR: 1.85, 95% CI: 1.02-3.36; I2=58.2%, p=0.041), and congenital heart disease (OR: 1.39, 95% CI: 1.09-1.76;…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free