ArticleBMC public health2026
Personal fine particulate matter (PM
Article in BMC public health, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFine particulate matter (PM₂.₅) exposure remains a major global public health concern, especially in low-resource countries where biomass fuels are commonly used for household energy. In these environments, extended indoor cooking and poor ventilation increase pregnant women's vulnerability to PM₂.₅ exposure. However, no study in Ethiopia has directly measured personal PM
methodsA community-based longitudinal cohort study with repeated measures was conducted between March and June 2025 among 328 pregnant women. Personal exposure to PM₂.₅ was measured at averagely 20, 30, and 36 weeks of gestation using Atmotube Pro air quality monitors. Structured questionnaires were used to collect socio-demographic, household, and cooking-related characteristics. Mean group differences were tested using one-way ANOVA and independent t-tests. A linear mixed-effects regression model with robust SEs was used to identify factors influencing personal PM
resultsA total of 328 pregnant women contributed 923 repeated PM
conclusionsPersonal PM₂.₅ exposure levels among pregnant women were 16-fold higher than the guideline values recommended by the World Health Organization. Living in highland area, using crop and animal residue as fuel source, and partner negligence were factors for personal PM
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.