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

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)