Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33003150›Full record

ArticleEpidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)2020

Modeling Desert Dust Exposures in Epidemiologic Short-term Health Effects Studies.

Aurelio Tobías, Massimo Stafoggia

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Aurelio TobíasFrom the Institute of Environmental Assessment and Water Research (IDAEA), Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC), Barcelona, Spain.
Massimo StafoggiaDepartment of Epidemiology, Lazio Regional Health Service/ASL Roma 1, Rome, Italy.
ASL Roma · ITInstitute of Environmental Assessment and Water Research · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDesert dust is assumed to have substantial adverse effects on human health. However, the epidemiologic evidence is still inconsistent, mainly because previous studies used different metrics for dust exposure and its corresponding epidemiologic analysis. We aim to provide a standardized approach to the methodology for evaluating the short-term health effects of desert dust.

methodsWe reviewed the methods commonly used for dust exposure assessment, from use of a binary metric for the occurrence of desert dust advections to a continuous one for quantifying particulate matter attributable to desert dust. We presented alternative time-series Poisson regression models to evaluate the dust exposure-mortality association, from the underlying epidemiological and policy-relevant questions. A set of practical examples, using a real dataset from Rome, Italy, illustrate the different modeling approaches.

resultsWe estimate substantial effects of desert dust episodes and particulate matter with diameter <10 μm (PM10) on daily mortality. The estimated effect of non-desert PM10 was 1.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.4, 3.2) for a 10 μg/m rise of PM10 at lag 0 for dust days, 0.4% (95% CI = -0.1, 0.8) for non-dust days, and 0.6% (95% CI = -0.5, 2.1) for desert PM10.

conclusionThe standardized modeling approach we propose could be applicable elsewhere, in and near hot spots, which could lead to more consistent evidence on the health effects of desert dust from future studies.

Indexed as

Desert ClimateDustEnvironmental ExposureEpidemiologic StudiesHumansItalyModels, StatisticalParticulate MatterDustParticulate Matter

Identifiers

PMID33003150
PMCPMC7523576
OpenAlexW3091353810

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.