Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27054582›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Hospital Emergency Room Visits for Respiratory Disease in Urban Areas in Beijing, China, in 2013.

Qin Xu, Xia Li, Shuo Wang, Chao Wang, Fangfang Huang, Qi Gao, Lijuan Wu, Lixin Tao, Jin Guo, Wei Wang and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 78 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
78citing 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

78 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. PMInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  11. Association and interaction of OBMC public health · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

18 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

11 authors.

Qin XuDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Xia LiDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Shuo WangBeijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Chao WangDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Fangfang HuangDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Qi GaoDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Lijuan WuDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Lixin TaoDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Jin GuoDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Wei WangDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Xiuhua GuoDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHeavy fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air pollution occurs frequently in China. However, epidemiological research on the association between short-term exposure to PM2.5 pollution and respiratory disease morbidity is still limited. This study aimed to explore the association between PM2.5 pollution and hospital emergency room visits (ERV) for total and cause-specific respiratory diseases in urban areas in Beijing.

methodsDaily counts of respiratory ERV from Jan 1 to Dec 31, 2013, were obtained from ten general hospitals located in urban areas in Beijing. Concurrently, data on PM2.5 were collected from the Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau, including 17 ambient air quality monitoring stations. A generalized-additive model was used to explore the respiratory effects of PM2.5, after controlling for confounding variables. Subgroup analyses were also conducted by age and gender.

resultsA total of 92,464 respiratory emergency visits were recorded during the study period. The mean daily PM2.5 concentration was 102.1±73.6 μg/m3. Every 10 μg/m3 increase in PM2.5 concentration at lag0 was associated with an increase in ERV, as follows: 0.23% for total respiratory disease (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.11%-0.34%), 0.19% for upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) (95%CI: 0.04%-0.35%), 0.34% for lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) (95%CI: 0.14%-0.53%) and 1.46% for acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) (95%CI: 0.13%-2.79%). The strongest association was identified between AECOPD and PM2.5 concentration at lag0-3 (3.15%, 95%CI: 1.39%-4.91%). The estimated effects were robust after adjusting for SO2, O3, CO and NO2. Females and people 60 years of age and older demonstrated a higher risk of respiratory disease after PM2.5 exposure.

conclusionPM2.5 was significantly associated with respiratory ERV, particularly for URTI, LRTI and AECOPD in Beijing. The susceptibility to PM2.5 pollution varied by gender and age.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAge FactorsBeijingChildChild, PreschoolEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHumansInfantMaleMiddle AgedParticulate MatterRespiratory Tract DiseasesSex FactorsParticulate Matter

Identifiers

PMID27054582
PMCPMC4824441

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.