Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21776436›Full record

ArticleJournal of environmental and public health2011

Geographic distribution of Environmental Relative Moldiness Index molds in USA homes.

Stephen Vesper, Jennie Wakefield, Peter Ashley, David Cox, Gary Dewalt, Warren Friedman

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of environmental and public health, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Indoor Fungal Exposure and Allergic Respiratory Disease.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2015
    Review
  3. Dampness, indoor mould, fungal DNA and respiratory health - molecular methods in indoor epidemiology.Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2015
    Article
  4. Infant origins of childhood asthma associated with specific molds.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2012
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Stephen VesperNational Exposure Research Laboratory, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA. vesper.stephen@epa.gov
Jennie Wakefield
Peter Ashley
David Cox
Gary Dewalt
Warren Friedman

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective of this study was to quantify and describe the distribution of the 36 molds that make up the Environmental Relative Moldiness Index (ERMI). MATERIALS AND

methodsAs part of the 2006 American Healthy Homes Survey, settled dust samples were analyzed by mold-specific quantitative PCR (MSQPCR) for the 36 ERMI molds. Each species' geographical distribution pattern was examined individually, followed by partitioning analysis in order to identify spatially meaningful patterns. For mapping, the 36 mold populations were divided into disjoint clusters on the basis of their standardized concentrations, and First Principal Component (FPC) scores were computed. RESULTS AND

conclusionsThe partitioning analyses failed to uncover a valid partitioning that yielded compact, well-separated partitions with systematic spatial distributions, either on global or local criteria. Disjoint variable clustering resulted in seven mold clusters. The 36 molds and ERMI values themselves were found to be heterogeneously distributed across the United States of America (USA).

Indexed as

Air MicrobiologyAir Pollution, IndoorDustFungiGeographyHealth SurveysHousingPolymerase Chain ReactionPrincipal Component AnalysisRegression AnalysisUnited StatesDust

Identifiers

PMID21776436
PMCPMC3136115

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.