Table 1.
Summary of review articles about epidemiological studies of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and type 2 diabetes (T2D).
| Authors | Publication year | Verbatim conclusion from each review |
|---|---|---|
| Taylor et al. (1) | 2013 | The overall evidence is sufficient for a positive association of some organochlorine POPs with type 2 diabetes. |
| Wu et al. (2) | 2013 | These findings support an association between POP exposure and the risk of T2D. |
| Lee et al. (3) | 2014 | The evidence as a whole suggests that, rather than a few individual POPs, background exposure to POP mixtures-including organochlorine pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls-can increase T2D risk in humans. |
| Magliano et al. (4) | 2014 | In summary, while the overall evidence is strongly suggestive of an independent relationship between POPs and diabetes, some inconsistencies exist. |
| Ngwa et al. (5) | 2015 | Despite different levels of risk in prospective studies and inconsistent results, the causal effect of POPs on diabetes is supported by in-vitro and in-vivo experimental studies. |
| Jaacks et al. (6) | 2015 | The literature suggests a positive association between select POPs and diabetes. |
| Song et al. (7) | 2016 | Serum concentrations of persistent EDCs* were significantly associated with T2D risk. |
| Evangelou et al. (8) | 2016 | Data suggest an association between organochlorine exposure and type 2 diabetes |
| Lind et al. (9) | 2018 | Evidence is accumulating that EDCs* might be involved in diabetes development. Best evidence exists for p,p'-DDE. |
*
EDCs (endocrine disrupting chemicals), POPs are classified as EDCs.