ArticleEnvironment international2017
An evaluation of the health benefits achieved at the time of an air quality intervention in three Israeli cities.
Article in Environment international, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Emission reduction strategies and health: a systematic review on the tools and methods to assess co-benefits.BMJ open · 2024Pooled it
- Interventions to reduce ambient particulate matter air pollution and their effect on health.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Effects of chronic exposure to ambient air pollutants, demographic, and socioeconomic factors on COVID-19 morbidity: The Israeli case study.Environmental research · 2021Article
- Air Pollution: A Neglected Risk Factor for Dementia in Latin America and the Caribbean.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
- Advancing environmental exposure assessment science to benefit society.Nature communications · 2019Review
- Air pollution health research priorities for India: Perspectives of the Indo-U.S. Communities of Researchers.Environment international · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe statistical association between increased exposure to air pollution and increased risk of morbidity and mortality is well established. However, documentation of the health benefits of lowering air pollution levels, which would support the biological plausibility of those past statistical associations, are not as well developed. A better understanding of the aftereffects of interventions to reduce air pollution is needed in order to: 1) better document the benefits of lowered air pollution; and, 2) identify the types of reductions that most effectively provide health benefits.
methodsThis study analyzes daily health and pollution data from three major cities in Israel that have undergone pollution control interventions to reduce sulfur emissions from combustion sources. In this work, the hypothesis tested is that transitions to cleaner fuels are accompanied by a decreased risk of daily cardiovascular and respiratory mortalities. Interrupted time series regression models are applied in order to test whether the cleaner air interventions are associated with a statistically significant reduction in mortality.
resultsIn the multi-city meta-analysis we found statistically significant reductions of 13.3% [CI -21.9%, -3.8%] in cardiovascular mortality, and a borderline significant (p=0.06) reduction of 19.0% [CI -35.1%, 1.1%] in total mortality.
conclusionsOverall, new experiential evidence is provided consistent with human health benefits being associated with interventions to reduce air pollution. The methods employed also provide an approach that may be applied elsewhere in the future to better document and optimize the health benefits of clean air interventions.
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.