Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39045486›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental epidemiology (Philadelphia, Pa.)2024

Choices of morbidity outcomes and concentration-response functions for health risk assessment of long-term exposure to air pollution.

Francesco Forastiere, Joseph V Spadaro, Carla Ancona, Zorana Jovanovic Andersen, Ilaria Cozzi, Sophie Gumy, Dejan Loncar, Pierpaolo Mudu, Sylvia Medina, Roman Perez Velasco and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental epidemiology (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. 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

13 authors.

Francesco ForastiereNational Research Council, IFT, Palermo, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9162-5684
Joseph V SpadaroWorld Health Organization, Headquarters, Geneva, Switzerland.
Carla AnconaDepartment of Epidemiology, Lazio Regional Health Service, Local Health Unit Roma 1, Rome, Italy.
Zorana Jovanovic AndersenDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ilaria CozziDepartment of Epidemiology, Lazio Regional Health Service, Local Health Unit Roma 1, Rome, Italy.
Sophie GumyWorld Health Organization, Headquarters, Geneva, Switzerland.
Dejan LoncarWorld Health Organization, Headquarters, Geneva, Switzerland.
Pierpaolo MuduWorld Health Organization (WHO), European Center for Environment and Health, Bonn, Germany.
Sylvia MedinaSanté Publique France, Paris, France.
Roman Perez VelascoWorld Health Organization (WHO), European Center for Environment and Health, Bonn, Germany.
Heather WaltonEnvironmental Research Group, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.
Jiawei ZhangDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Michal KrzyzanowskiEnvironmental Research Group, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Air pollution health risk assessment (HRA) has been typically conducted for all causes and cause-specific mortality based on concentration-response functions (CRFs) from meta-analyses that synthesize the evidence on air pollution health effects. There is a need for a similar systematic approach for HRA for morbidity outcomes, which have often been omitted from HRA of air pollution, thus underestimating the full air pollution burden. We aimed to compile from the existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses CRFs for the incidence of several diseases that could be applied in HRA. To achieve this goal, we have developed a comprehensive strategy for the appraisal of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses that examine the relationship between long-term exposure to particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter smaller than 2.5 µm (PM Methods: To establish the basis for our evaluation, we considered the causality determinations provided by the US Environmental Protection Agency Integrated Science Assessment for PM Results: In our final evaluation, list A includes six CRFs for PM Conclusion: The suggestions formulated in this study, including CRFs selected from the available systematic reviews, can assist in conducting reliable HRAs and contribute to evidence-based decision-making in public health and environmental policy. Future research should continue to update and refine these suggestions as new evidence becomes available and methodologies evolve.

Indexed as

Air pollutionMeta-analysisMorbidityNitrogen dioxideParticulate matterSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39045486
PMCPMC11265782

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.