Evidence Hub

Chlorination Disinfection By-Products in Drinking Water and Congenital Anomalies: Review and Meta-Analyses

M. Nieuwenhuijsen, D. Martinez, J. Grellier, J. Bennett, N. Best, N. Iszatt, M. Vrijheid, M. Toledano

Environmental Health Perspectives, 2009

174 citations

Abstract

Objectives The aim of this study was to review epidemiologic evidence, provide summary risk estimates of the association between exposure to chlorination disinfection by-products (DBPs) and congenital anomalies, and provide recommendations for future studies. Data sources and extraction We included all published epidemiologic studies that evaluated a relationship between an index of DBP exposure (treatment, water source, DBP measurements, and both DBP measurements and personal characteristics) and risk of congenital anomalies. When three or more studies examined the same exposure index and congenital anomaly, we conducted a meta-analysis to obtain a summary risk estimate comparing the highest exposure group with the lowest exposure group. When five or more studies examined total trihalomethane (TTHM) exposure and a specific congenital anomaly, we conducted a meta-analysis to obtain exposure–response risk estimates per 10 μg/L TTHM. Data synthesis For all congenital anomalies combined, the meta-analysis gave a statistically significant excess risk for high versus low exposure to water chlorination or TTHM [17%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3–34] based on a small number of studies. The meta-analysis also suggested a statistically significant excess risk for ventricular septal defects (58%; 95% CI, 21–107), but this was based on only three studies, and there was little evidence of an exposure–response relationship. We observed no statistically significant relationships in the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. 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