ReviewJournal of environmental and public health2013
A review of exposure assessment methods in epidemiological studies on incinerators.
Review in Journal of environmental and public health, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Residential exposure to municipal solid waste incinerators and health effects: a systematic review with meta-analysis.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- Risk Associations between Vehicular Traffic Noise Exposure and Cardiovascular Diseases: A Residential Retrospective Cohort Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Assessment of Relative Asthma Risk in Populations Living Near Incineration Facilities in Seoul, Korea.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Estimated time-varying exposures to air emissions from animal feeding operations and childhood asthma.International journal of hygiene and environmental health · 2020Article
- Mortality and Morbidity in a Population Exposed to Emission from a Municipal Waste Incinerator. A Retrospective Cohort Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Development and performance evaluation of a GIS-based metric to assess exposure to airborne pollutant emissions from industrial sources.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2019Article
- Pulmonary functionality among workers of a Central Italy waste-to-energy plant: a retrospective study.Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 2019Article
- Estimating Particulate Exposure from Modern Municipal Waste Incinerators in Great Britain.Environmental science & technology · 2017Article
- Biomonitoring and exposure assessment of people living near or working at an Italian waste incinerator: methodology of the SPoTT study.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2016Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Incineration is a common technology for waste disposal, and there is public concern for the health impact deriving from incinerators. Poor exposure assessment has been claimed as one of the main causes of inconsistency in the epidemiological literature. We reviewed 41 studies on incinerators published between 1984 and January 2013 and classified them on the basis of exposure assessment approach. Moreover, we performed a simulation study to explore how the different exposure metrics may influence the exposure levels used in epidemiological studies. 19 studies used linear distance as a measure of exposure to incinerators, 11 studies atmospheric dispersion models, and the remaining 11 studies a qualitative variable such as presence/absence of the source. All reviewed studies utilized residence as a proxy for population exposure, although residence location was evaluated with different precision (e.g., municipality, census block, or exact address). Only one study reconstructed temporal variability in exposure. Our simulation study showed a notable degree of exposure misclassification caused by the use of distance compared to dispersion modelling. We suggest that future studies (i) make full use of pollution dispersion models; (ii) localize population on a fine-scale; and (iii) explicitly account for the presence of potential environmental and socioeconomic confounding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.