ArticlePloS one2021
Interventions to mitigate indoor air pollution: A cost-benefit analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Air Pollution Mitigation Strategies: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Pooled it
- The costs, health and economic impact of air pollution control strategies: a systematic review.Global health research and policy · 2024Pooled it
- Place-Based Strategies Addressing Neighborhood Environments to Improve Perinatal and Preterm Infant Outcomes.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Globally, around three billion people depend upon solid fuels such as firewood, dry animal dung, crop residues, or coal, and use traditional stoves for cooking and heating purposes. This solid fuel combustion causes indoor air pollution (IAP) and severely impairs health and the environment, especially in developing countries like Pakistan. A number of alternative household energy strategies can be adopted to mitigate IAP, such as using liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), natural gas, biogas, electric stoves, or improved cook stoves (ICS). In this study, we estimate the benefit-cost ratios and net present value of these interventions over a ten-year period in Pakistan. Annual costs include both fixed and operating costs, whereas benefits cover health, productivity gains, time savings, and fuel savings. We find that LPG has the highest benefit-cost ratio, followed by natural gas, while ICS has the lowest benefit-cost ratio. Electric stoves and biogas have moderate benefit-cost ratios that nevertheless exceed one. To maximize the return on cleaner burning technology, the government of Pakistan should consider encouraging the adoption of LPG, piped natural gas, and electric stoves as means to reduce IAP and adopt clean technologies.
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.