Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38992293›Full record

SynthesisWiener klinische Wochenschrift2025

Childhood asthma and mould in homes-A meta-analysis.

Marton Kristof Varga, Hanns Moshammer, Oral Atanyazova

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Marton Kristof VargaZPH, Department of Environmental Health, Medical University of Vienna, ZPH, Kinderspitalgasse 15, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Hanns MoshammerZPH, Department of Environmental Health, Medical University of Vienna, ZPH, Kinderspitalgasse 15, 1090, Vienna, Austria. hanns.moshammer@meduniwien.ac.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2235-0645
Oral AtanyazovaKarakalpakstan Medical Institute, 230100, Nukus, Uzbekistan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Asthma is a multifaceted and multicausal disease. Childhood asthma is strongly influenced by genetic traits and is characterized by hyperreactivity of the airways so that also unspecific triggers including moulds can trigger an asthma attack. Therefore, it is undisputed that moulds in the home can cause asthma attacks in asthmatic children. It is, however, unclear if mould in homes also induce the development of asthma. Because more and more severe attacks in asthmatic children living in mouldy homes might speed up the diagnosis of asthma, cross-sectional studies are not well-suited to differentiate between mould as a causative or only as a precipitating factor. Cross-sectional studies show an increased asthma risk and poorer lung function in children living in mouldy homes. To better understand the causal role of mould in homes, a systematic review was performed with random effects meta-analysis focusing on cohort and case-control studies only.We found 21 case-control and 11 cohort studies examining the association between mould at home and later advent of childhood asthma. According to the case-control studies, mouldy homes increase the risk of asthma by 53% (95 confidence interval [CI]: 42-65%) with no evidence of heterogeneity or publication bias. Risk estimates based on cohort studies were smaller with 15% (1-31%). The cohort studies also showed no publication bias but substantial heterogeneity (I

Indexed as

Air Pollution, IndoorAsthmaFungiChildComorbidityFemaleHumansMalePrevalenceRisk FactorsCase-control studiesCohort studiesConditionsDampnessSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38992293
PMCPMC11794369

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.