Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33788856›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2021

Exposure to formaldehyde and asthma outcomes: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and economic assessment.

Juleen Lam, Erica Koustas, Patrice Sutton, Amy M Padula, Michael D Cabana, Hanna Vesterinen, Charles Griffiths, Mark Dickie, Natalyn Daniels, Evans Whitaker and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Mast cells are key mediators in the pulmonary inflammatory response to formaldehyde exposure.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Juleen LamUniversity of California San Francisco, Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Erica KoustasScientific Consultant to the University of California, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Patrice SuttonUniversity of California San Francisco, Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Amy M PadulaUniversity of California San Francisco, Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Michael D CabanaUniversity of California San Francisco, Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Hanna VesterinenScientific Consultant to the University of California, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Charles GriffithsU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Economics, Washington, DC, United States of America.
Mark DickieDepartment of Economics, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, United States of America.
Natalyn DanielsUniversity of California San Francisco, Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Evans WhitakerUniversity of California San Francisco, Schools of Medicine and Pharmacy, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Tracey J WoodruffUniversity of California San Francisco, Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, San Francisco, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-3622-1297
University of California, San Francisco · USEnvironmental Protection Agency · USLee University · USUniversity of Central Florida · US

Funding

UCSF Environmental Research and Translation for Health Center (EaRTH Center)P30ES030284 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI JENNIFER C FUNG, Tracey J. Woodruff · 2020 to 2026
$11.2M
The UCSF Pregnancy Exposures to Environmental Chemicals (PEEC) Children's CenterP01ES022841 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI WOODRUFF, TRACEY J. · 2013 to 2018
$3.9M
NIEHS NIH HHS P01 ES022841NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES030284
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvery major federal regulation in the United States requires an economic analysis estimating its benefits and costs. Benefit-cost analyses related to regulations on formaldehyde exposure have not included asthma in part due to lack of clarity in the strength of the evidence.

objectives1) To conduct a systematic review of evidence regarding human exposure to formaldehyde and diagnosis, signs, symptoms, exacerbations, or other measures of asthma in humans; and 2) quantify the annual economic benefit for decreases in formaldehyde exposure.

methodsWe developed and registered a protocol in PROSPERO (Record ID #38766, CRD 42016038766). We conducted a comprehensive search of articles published up to April 1, 2020. We evaluated potential risk of bias for included studies, identified a subset of studies to combine in a meta-analysis, and rated the overall quality and strength of the evidence. We quantified economics benefit to children from a decrease in formaldehyde exposure using assumptions consistent with EPA's proposed formaldehyde rule.

resultsWe screened 4,821 total references and identified 150 human studies that met inclusion criteria; of these, we focused on 90 studies reporting asthma status of all participants with quantified measures of formaldehyde directly relevant to our study question. Ten studies were combinable in a meta-analysis for childhood asthma diagnosis and five combinable for exacerbation of childhood asthma (wheezing and shortness of breath). Studies had low to probably-low risk of bias across most domains. A 10-μg/m3 increase in formaldehyde exposure was associated with increased childhood asthma diagnosis (OR = 1.20, 95% CI: [1.02, 1.41]). We also found a positive association with exacerbation of childhood asthma (OR = 1.08, 95% CI: [0.92, 1.28]). The overall quality and strength of the evidence was rated as "moderate" quality and "sufficient" for asthma diagnosis and asthma symptom exacerbation in both children and adults. We estimated that EPA's proposed rule on pressed wood products would result in 2,805 fewer asthma cases and total economic benefit of $210 million annually.

conclusionWe concluded there was "sufficient evidence of toxicity" for associations between exposure to formaldehyde and asthma diagnosis and asthma symptoms in both children and adults. Our research documented that when exposures are ubiquitous, excluding health outcomes from benefit-cost analysis can underestimate the true benefits to health from environmental regulations.

Indexed as

AsthmaCost-Benefit AnalysisEnvironmental ExposureFormaldehydeHumansOccupational ExposureFormaldehyde

Identifiers

PMID33788856
PMCPMC8011796
OpenAlexW3146887680

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.