4.2 Review

Ambient air pollution and multiple sclerosis: a systematic review

Journal

REVIEWS ON ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Volume 36, Issue 4, Pages 535-544

Publisher

WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH
DOI: 10.1515/reveh-2020-0079

Keywords

air pollution; multiple sclerosis; recurrence

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This systematic review suggests a potential relationship between outdoor air pollution, particularly PM and nitrogen oxides, and the prevalence or relapse of multiple sclerosis (MS). However, results from different studies varied in their findings.
Objectives: Some studies have shown that environmental risk factors, including air pollution, might be related to the incidence or recurrence of multiple sclerosis (MS). This systematic review was conducted to investigate the relation between air pollution and MS. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, Embase, and Web of Science; until January 2020 with no restrictions. The search strategy was conducted with air pollution key words such as CO, PM2.5, PM10, SO2, and NO2, for exposure and the key word Multiple sclerosis as the outcome. Results: Eventually, after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 17 articles were included. The methodologies and outcomes reported were heterogeneous and different metrics had been used in the results; therefore conducting a meta- analysis was not possible. Eight studies had analyzed the relation between particulate matter (PM) and the prevalence or relapse of MS and had observed a significant relation. NO2 and NOx were associated with recurrence or prevalence of MS in three studies. But, in three cohort studies, no association was observed between air pollution and recurrence or occurrence of MS. Conclusions: The results of this systematic review show that outdoor air pollution, especially PM and nitrogen oxides might be related to the prevalence or relapse of MS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available