4.3 Article

Ambient Air Pollution and Hospital Admissions for Peptic Ulcers in Taipei: A Time-Stratified Case-Crossover Study

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16111916

关键词

ozone; nitrogen dioxide; air pollution; peptic ulcer; case-crossover; hospital admissions

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology, Executive Yuan, Taiwan [MOST 107-2314-B-037-089-MY3]
  2. Wang Jhan-Yang Trust Fund (WJYCTF) [WJY 2016-HR-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Very few studies have been performed to determine whether there is a relationship between air pollution and increases in hospitalizations for peptic ulcer, and for those that have occurred, their results may not be completely relevant to Taiwan, where the mixture of ambient air pollutants differ. We performed a time-stratified case-crossover study to investigate the possible association between air pollutant levels and hospital admissions for peptic ulcer in Taipei, Taiwan. To do this, we collected air pollution data from Taiwan's Environmental Protection Agency and hospital admissions for peptic ulcer data for the years 2009-2013 from Taiwan's National Health Insurance's research database. We used conditional logistic regression to analyze the possible association between the two, taking temperature and relative humidity into account. Risk was expressed as odds ratios and significance was expressed with 95% confidence intervals. In our single pollutant model, peptic ulcer admissions were significantly associated with all pollutants (PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NO2, CO, and O-3) on warm days (>23 degrees C). On cool days (<23 degrees C), peptic ulcer admissions were significantly associated with PM10, NO2, and O-3. In our two-pollutant models, peptic ulcer admissions were significantly associated NO2 and O-3 when combined with each of the other pollutants on warm days, and with PM10, NO2, and O-3 on cool days. It was concluded that the likelihood of peptic ulcer hospitalizations in Taipei rose significantly with increases in air pollutants during the study period.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据