Skip to main content

Table 1 Micronuclei in three different cell types for all the studies included in the review

From: Evaluation of cell types for assessment of cytogenetic damage in arsenic exposed population

    Effect size [Exposed; vs. Unexposed; Mean (SE)]
Sl no. Author, Year [Ref No.] Sample Size N (Exposed; Unexposed) Lymphocyte Urothelial Buccal
1 Warner et al., 1994. [23] 36 (18,18) - 2.79 (0.73) vs. 1.57 (0.28) -
2 Moore et al., 1996 [24] 36 (18,18) - 2.8 (NA) vs. 1.67 (NA) -
3 Dolout et al., 1996 [9] 44 (22; 22) 38 (3.2) vs 6.9 (1.7)   
4 Moore et al., 1997 [25] 125 (70; 55) - 3.2 (NA) vs. 2.6 (NA) -
5 Biggs et al., 1997 [26] 104 (83; 21) - 3.34 (NA) vs. 1.61 (NA) -
6 Gonsebatt et al., 1997 [7] 69 (35; 34) - 2.23 (0.99) vs. 0.48 (0.10) 2.21 (0.47) vs. 0.58 (0.13)
7 Tian et al., 2001 [27] 32 (19; 13)   1.44 (0.37) vs. 0.53 (0.14) 2.21 (0.36) vs. 0.65 (0.21)
8 Basu et al., 2002 [22] 65 (45; 21) 6.39 (0.25) vs. 0.53 (0.07) 5.74 (0.27) vs. 0.56 (0.1) 5.15 (0.3) vs. 0.77 (0.11)
9 Basu et al., 2004 [15] 317 (163; 154) 9.34 (0.153) vs. 1.66 (0.061) 6.65 (0.13) vs. 1.41 (0.05) 5.94 (0.15) vs. 1.28 (0.05)
10 Martinez et al., 2004 [21] 217 (106; 111) 14.44 (0.99) vs. 11.96 (1.02) - -
11 Martinez et al., 2005 [28] 207 (105; 102) - - 3.14 (0.32) vs. 2.74 (0.26)
12 Chakraborty et al., 2006 [29] 70 (45; 25) - - 9.8 (0.7) vs. 2.9 (0.1)
13 Ghosh et al., 2006 [16] 306 (204; 102) 7.76 (0.17) vs. 2.03 (0.08) 5.13 (0.13) vs. 1.70 (0.07) 4.62 (0.15) vs. 1.67 (0.06)