Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27252854›Full record

ArticleArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2016

Acute mountain sickness among tourists visiting the high-altitude city of Lhasa at 3658 m above sea level: a cross-sectional study.

Gonggalanzi, Labasangzhu, Per Nafstad, Hein Stigum, Tianyi Wu, Øyvind Drejer Haldorsen, Kristoffer Ommundsen, Espen Bjertness

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Advancing high-altitude medicine: a model for the future.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Altitude illnesses.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2024
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

GonggalanziInstitute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1130 Blindern, Oslo, 0318 Norway ; Tibet University Medical College, No. 1 South Luobulinka Road, Lhasa, 850002 Tibet China.
LabasangzhuTibet University Medical College, No. 1 South Luobulinka Road, Lhasa, 850002 Tibet China.
Per NafstadInstitute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1130 Blindern, Oslo, 0318 Norway ; Division of Epidemiology, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Hein StigumInstitute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1130 Blindern, Oslo, 0318 Norway ; Division of Epidemiology, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Tianyi WuNational Key Laboratory of High-Altitude Medicine, Qinghai, China.
Øyvind Drejer HaldorsenInstitute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1130 Blindern, Oslo, 0318 Norway.
Kristoffer OmmundsenInstitute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1130 Blindern, Oslo, 0318 Norway.
Espen BjertnessInstitute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1130 Blindern, Oslo, 0318 Norway.
University of Oslo · NOTibet University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTraveling to Tibet implies a risk for developing acute mountain sickness (AMS), and the size of this problem is likely increasing due to the rising number of tourists. No previous study on AMS has been conducted among the general tourist population in Tibet. Thus, the aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence and determinants of AMS in a large tourist population visiting Lhasa.

methodsA sample of 2385 tourists was recruited from seven randomly selected hotels in Lhasa between June and October 2010. Within three days of their first arrival, the participants filled in a questionnaire based on the Lake Louise Scoring System (LLSS) about AMS-related symptoms and potential contributing factors. AMS was defined as the presence of headache and a cumulative Lake Louise Score ≥4. After estimating the prevalence of AMS, a Log-Binomial Model was applied to analyse the relationship between AMS and selected risk factors.

resultsThe prevalence of AMS was 36.7 % (95 % CI: 34.6-38.7 %) and was not dependent on tourists' country of origin. Among the participants who developed AMS, 47.6 % reported that they experienced symptoms within the first 12 h after arriving in Lhasa, and 79.0 % reported that they had to reduce their activity level. A poor or average health condition (adjusted PR 1.63, 95 % CI 1.38-1.93), an age below 55 years (adjusted PR 1.29, 95 % CI 1.04-1.60), a rapid ascent to Lhasa (adjusted PR 1.17, 95 % CI 1.02-1.34) were independent AMS risk factors, while smoking (adjusted PR 0.75, 95 % CI 0.59-0.96) and pre-exposure to high altitude (adjusted PR 0.71, 95 % CI 0.60-0.84) reduced the risk of AMS.

conclusionsAMS is commonly experienced by tourists visiting Lhasa Tibet, and often affects their activities. The tourists' country of origin did not seem to affect their risk of AMS, and their age was inversely related to AMS. Subjects planning to visit a high-altitude area should be prepared for experiencing AMS-related problems, and consider preventive measures such as pre-exposure or a gradual ascent to high altitudes.

Indexed as

Acute mountain sicknessTibetTourist

Identifiers

PMID27252854
PMCPMC4888367
OpenAlexW2345193345

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.