Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35206669›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

Detecting Airborne Pollen Using an Automatic, Real-Time Monitoring System: Evidence from Two Sites.

Maria Pilar Plaza, Franziska Kolek, Vivien Leier-Wirtz, Jens Otto Brunner, Claudia Traidl-Hoffmann, Athanasios Damialis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Field Evaluation of an Automated Pollen Sensor.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  8. 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

6 authors.

Maria Pilar PlazaEnvironmental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Augsburg, 86156 Augsburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1192-2214
Franziska KolekEnvironmental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Augsburg, 86156 Augsburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8703-1894
Vivien Leier-WirtzEnvironmental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Augsburg, 86156 Augsburg, Germany.
Jens Otto BrunnerHealth Care Operations/Health Information Management, Faculty of Business and Economics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Augsburg, 86159 Augsburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2700-4795
Claudia Traidl-HoffmannEnvironmental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Augsburg, 86156 Augsburg, Germany.
Athanasios DamialisEnvironmental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Augsburg, 86156 Augsburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2917-5667

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Airborne pollen monitoring has been an arduous task, making ecological applications and allergy management virtually disconnected from everyday practice. Over the last decade, intensive research has been conducted worldwide to automate this task and to obtain real-time measurements. The aim of this study was to evaluate such an automated biomonitoring system vs. the conventional 'gold-standard' Hirst-type technique, attempting to assess which may more accurately provide the genuine exposure to airborne pollen. Airborne pollen was monitored in Augsburg since 2015 with two different methods, a novel automatic Bio-Aerosol Analyser, and with the conventional 7-day recording Hirst-type volumetric trap, in two different sites. The reliability, performance, accuracy, and comparability of the BAA500 Pollen Monitor (PoMo) vs. the conventional device were investigated, by use of approximately 2.5 million particles sampled during the study period. The observations made by the automated PoMo showed an average accuracy of approximately 85%. However, it also exhibited reliability problems, with information gaps within the main pollen season of between 17 to 19 days. The PoMo automated algorithm had identification issues, mainly confusing the taxa of

Indexed as

AllergensEnvironmental MonitoringPollenReproducibility of ResultsSeasonsAllergensaerobiologyautomatic pollen monitoringenvironmental health servicesreal-time monitoringsensitivity analysis

Identifiers

PMID35206669
PMCPMC8872361

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.