ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023
Does It Measure Up? A Comparison of Pollution Exposure Assessment Techniques Applied across Hospitals in England.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characterizing the relationship between air pollution and childhood cognition in the Children's health and air pollution study.Environmental research · 2026Article
- Clinical and molecular correlates of digitally quantified anthracosis in lung tissue slides: utility of an automated quantitative workflow.The journal of pathology. Clinical research · 2026Article
- The association between prenatal exposure to mixed air pollutants and birth defects risk: a population-based study in Tangshan, China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Air pollution and alveolar health.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025Review
- Examining air pollution exposure dynamics in disadvantaged communities through high-resolution mapping.Science advances · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Weighted averages of air pollution measurements from monitoring stations are commonly assigned as air pollution exposures to specific locations. However, monitoring networks are spatially sparse and fail to adequately capture the spatial variability. This may introduce bias and exposure misclassification. Advanced methods of exposure assessment are rarely practicable in estimating daily concentrations over large geographical areas. We propose an accessible method using temporally adjusted land use regression models (daily LUR). We applied this to produce daily concentration estimates for nitrogen dioxide, ozone, and particulate matter in a healthcare setting across England and compared them against geographically extrapolated measurements (inverse distance weighting) from air pollution monitors. The daily LUR estimates outperformed IDW. The precision gains varied across air pollutants, suggesting that, for nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter, the health effects may be underestimated. The results emphasised the importance of spatial heterogeneity in investigating the societal impacts of air pollution, illustrating improvements achievable at a lower computational cost.
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.