ArticleIndoor air2022
Use of candles and risk of cardiovascular and respiratory events in a Danish cohort study.
Article in Indoor air, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
- Residential exposure to mold, dampness, and indoor air pollution and risk of respiratory tract infections: a study among children ages 11 and 12 in the Danish National Birth Cohort.European journal of epidemiology · 2024Article
- Exposure to different residential indoor characteristics during childhood and asthma in adolescence: a latent class analysis of the Danish National Birth Cohort.European journal of epidemiology · 2024Article
- Use of candles and risk of cardiovascular and respiratory events in a Danish cohort study.Indoor air · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Burning candles at home emit small particles and gases that pollute indoor air. Exposure to fine particles in outdoor air has been convincingly linked to cardiovascular and respiratory events, while the associations with fine and ultrafine particles from candle burning remain unexplored. We examined the association between the use of candles and incident cardiovascular and respiratory events. We collected data on 6757 participants of the Copenhagen Aging and Midlife Biobank cohort recruited in 2009 and followed them up for the first hospital contact for incident cardiovascular and respiratory events until 2018. We investigated an association between the self-reported frequency of candle use in wintertime and cardiovascular and respiratory events, using Cox regression models adjusting for potential confounders. During follow-up, 1462 and 834 were admitted for cardiovascular and respiratory events, respectively. We found null associations between candle use and a hospital contact due to cardiovascular and respiratory events, with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.84, 1.11) and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.81, 1.18), respectively, among those using candles >4 times/week compared with <1 time/week. For cause-specific cardiovascular diseases, HRs were 1.10 (95% CI: 0.85, 1.43) for ischemic heart disease and 1.18 (95% CI: 0.77, 1.81) for myocardial infarction. For chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, HR was 1.26 (95% CI: 0.81, 1.97). We found no statistically significant associations between candle use and the risk of cardiovascular and respiratory events. Studies with improved exposure assessments are warranted.
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.