4.6 Article

Outdoor Fine Particles and Nonfatal Strokes Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Journal

EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 25, Issue 6, Pages 835-842

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000162

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Epidemiologic studies find that long-and short-term exposure to fine particles (PM2.5) is associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes. However, few systematic reviews or meta-analyses have synthesized these results. Methods: We reviewed epidemiologic studies that estimated the risks of nonfatal strokes attributable to ambient PM2.5. To pool risks among studies we used a random-effects model and 2 Bayesian approaches. The first Bayesian approach assumes a normal prior that allows risks to be zero, positive or negative. The second assumes a gamma prior, where risks can only be positive. This second approach is proposed when the number of studies pooled is small, and there is toxicological or clinical literature to support a causal relation. Results: We identified 20 studies suitable for quantitative meta-analysis. Evidence for publication bias is limited. The frequentist meta-analysis produced pooled risk ratios of 1.06 (95% confidence interval = 1.00-1.13) and 1.007 (1.003-1.010) for long-and short-term effects, respectively. The Bayesian meta-analysis found a posterior mean risk ratio of 1.08 (95% posterior interval = 0.96-1.26) and 1.008 (1.003-1.013) from a normal prior, and of 1.05 (1.02-1.10) and 1.008 (1.004-1.013) from a gamma prior, for long-and short-term effects, respectively, per 10 mu g/m(3) PM2.5. Conclusions: Sufficient evidence exists to develop a concentration-response relation for short-and long-term exposures to PM2.5 and stroke incidence. Long-term exposures to PM2.5 result in a higher risk ratio than short-term exposures, regardless of the pooling method. The evidence for short-term PM2.5-related ischemic stroke is especially strong.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available