ArticlePublic health2020
Health and economic consequences of applying the United States' PM
Article in Public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Air Pollution Mitigation Strategies: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Pooled it
- Health and economic impacts from PMEnvironmental science and pollution research international · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe US has among the world's strictest automobile emission standards, but it is now loosening them. It is unclear where a nation should draw the line between the associated cost burden imposed by regulations and the broader societal benefits associated with having cleaner air. Our study examines the health benefits and cost-effectiveness of introducing stricter vehicle emission standards in France and Italy. STUDY
designQuasi-experimental study.
methodsWe used cost-effectiveness modeling to measure the incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost (Euros) of adopting more stringent US vehicle emission standards for PM
resultsAdopting Obama era US vehicle emission standards would likely save money and lives for both the French and Italian populations. In France, adopting US emission standards would save €1000 and increase QALYs by 0.04 per capita. In Italy, the stricter standards would save €3000 and increase QALYs by 0.31. The results remain robust in both the sensitivity analysis and probabilistic Monte Carlo simulation model.
conclusionsAdopting more stringent emission standards in France and Italy would save money and lives.
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.