Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33277274›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Environmental factors associated with general practitioner consultations for allergic rhinitis in London, England: a retrospective time series analysis.

Dan Todkill, Felipe de Jesus Colon Gonzalez, Roger Morbey, Andre Charlett, Shakoor Hajat, Sari Kovats, Nicholas J Osborne, Rachel McInnes, Sotiris Vardoulakis, Karen Exley and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Characterizing air pollution exposure methodologies in rhinology: a scoping review.International journal of environmental health research · 2025
    Article
  4. Time series analysis in environmental epidemiology: challenges and considerations.International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health · 2023
    Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

13 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Dan TodkillField Epidemiology Training Programme, National Infection Service, Public Health England, Birmingham, UK D.Todkill@warwick.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-4325-4786
Felipe de Jesus Colon GonzalezSchool of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Roger MorbeyReal-time Syndromic Surveillance Team, National Infection Service, Public Health England, Birmingham, UK.
Andre CharlettStatistics, Modelling and Economics Unit, Public Health England, London, UK.
Shakoor HajatDepartment of Social and Environmental Health Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Sari KovatsDepartment of Social and Environmental Health Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Nicholas J OsborneSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6700-2284
Rachel McInnesMet Office, Exeter, UK.
Sotiris VardoulakisAustralian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Karen ExleyAir Quality & Public Health Group, Environmental Hazards and Emergencies Department, Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, Public Health England, Chilton, UK.
Obaghe EdeghereField Epidemiology Training Programme, National Infection Service, Public Health England, Birmingham, UK.
Gillian SmithHealth Services Division, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Alex J ElliotHealth Services Division, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6414-3065
Public Health England · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBAustralian National University · AUMet Office · GBThe University of Queensland · AUUniversity of East Anglia · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo identify key predictors of general practitioner (GP) consultations for allergic rhinitis (AR) using meteorological and environmental data.

designA retrospective, time series analysis of GP consultations for AR.

settingA large GP surveillance network of GP practices in the London area.

participantsThe study population was all persons who presented to general practices in London that report to the Public Health England GP in-hours syndromic surveillance system during the study period (3 April 2012 to 11 August 2014). PRIMARY MEASURE: Consultations for AR (numbers of consultations).

resultsDuring the study period there were 186 401 GP consultations for AR. High grass and nettle pollen counts (combined) were associated with the highest increases in consultations (for the category 216-270 grains/m

conclusionsChanges in grass, nettle or tree pollen counts, temperatures between 15°C and 20°C, and (to a lesser extent) NO

Indexed as

General PractitionersRhinitis, AllergicEnglandHumansLondonReferral and ConsultationRetrospective Studiesallergyepidemiologyprimary carepublic health

Identifiers

PMID33277274
PMCPMC7722376
OpenAlexW3107091753

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.