Skip Navigation


IJE Advance Access originally published online on March 16, 2006
International Journal of Epidemiology 2006 35(5):1220-1230; doi:10.1093/ije/dyl038
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
35/5/1220    most recent
dyl038v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ngo, A. D
Right arrow Articles by Nguyen, T. V
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ngo, A. D
Right arrow Articles by Nguyen, T. V
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association © The Author 2006; all rights reserved.

Article

Association between Agent Orange and birth defects: systematic review and meta-analysis

Anh D Ngo1, Richard Taylor2, Christine L Roberts3 and Tuan V Nguyen4,*

1 School of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center, USA
2 School of Population Health, University of Queensland, Australia
3 Center for Prenatal Health Services Research, University of Sydney, Australia
4 Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, Australia

* Corresponding author. Senior Research Fellow and Associate Professor, Bone and Mineral Research Program, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, 384 Victoria Street, Darlinghurst, NSW 2010 Australia. E-mail: t.nguyen{at}garvan.org.au

Background The association between parental exposure to Agent Orange or dioxin and birth defects is controversial, due to inconsistent findings in the literature. The principal aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis of relevant epidemiological studies that examined this association and to assess the heterogeneity among studies.

Methods Relevant studies were identified through a computerized literature search of Medline and Embase from 1966 to 2002; reviewing the reference list of retrieved articles and conference proceedings; and contacting researchers for unpublished studies. A specified protocol was followed to extract data on study details and outcomes. Both fixed-effects and random-effects models were used to synthesize the results of individual studies. The Cochrane Q test and index of heterogeneity (I2) were used to evaluate heterogeneity, and a funnel plot and Egger's test were used to evaluate publication bias.

Results In total, 22 studies including 13 Vietnamese and nine non-Vietnamese studies were identified. The summary relative risk (RR) of birth defects associated with exposure to Agent Orange was 1.95 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.59–2.39], with substantial heterogeneity across studies. Vietnamese studies showed a higher summary RR (RR = 3.00; 95% CI 2.19–4.12) than non-Vietnamese studies (RR = 1.29; 95% CI 1.04–1.59). Sub-group analyses found that the magnitude of association tended to increase with greater degrees of exposure to Agent Orange, rated on intensity and duration of exposure and dioxin concentrations measured in affected populations.

Conclusion Parental exposure to Agent Orange appears to be associated with an increased risk of birth defects.


Keywords Agent Orange, dioxin, birth defects, meta-analysis, Vietnam

Accepted 13 February 2006


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Int J EpidemiolHome page
A. Schecter and J. D Constable
Commentary: Agent Orange and birth defects in Vietnam
Int. J. Epidemiol., October 1, 2006; 35(5): 1230 - 1232.
[Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.