ArticleIndian journal of occupational and environmental medicine
Effectiveness of Personal-Level Protective Measures Against Air Pollution on Respiratory Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Article in Indian journal of occupational and environmental medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Air pollution, particularly fine particulate matter (PM₂.₅), poses a significant global health risk, contributing to respiratory, and cardiovascular diseases. While personal-level interventions such as air purifiers and respirators are commonly used to reduce exposure, their effectiveness in improving clinical outcomes remains uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy of such measures in reducing adverse respiratory and cardiovascular outcomes. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library was conducted up to February 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the use of air purifiers or respirators in non-occupational settings were included. Meta-analyses were performed using fixed or random-effects models, and effect sizes were expressed as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Twenty-seven RCTs were included. Personal-level interventions significantly reduced indoor PM₂.₅ (SMD = -2.27; 95% CI: -2.98 to -1.55) and PM₁₀ (SMD = -3.87; 95% CI: -4.59 to -3.16) levels. However, no significant improvements were observed for forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) (SMD = 0.04; 95% CI: -0.07 to 0.15), peak expiratory flow (PEF), forced vital capacity (FVC), respiratory symptoms, or blood pressure. Sensitivity analysis showed a significant reduction in FeNO (SMD = -0.16; 95% CI: -0.28 to -0.04). While effective in reducing particulate matter, personal-level interventions showed limited clinical benefits for respiratory or cardiovascular health.
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.