4.8 Review

Long-term exposure to NO2 and O3 and all-cause and respiratory mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL
卷 144, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.105998

关键词

Nitrogen dioxide; Ozone; Cohort; Mortality; Systematic review; Meta-analysis

资金

  1. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe
  2. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (Germany)
  3. Federal Ministry of Health (Germany)
  4. Government of the Republic of Korea
  5. Federal Office for the Environment (Switzerland)
  6. United States Environmental Protection Agency
  7. European Commission (DG Environment)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: WHO has published several volumes of Global Air Quality Guidelines to provide guidance on the health risks associated with exposure to outdoor air pollution. As new scientific evidence is generated, air quality guidelines need to be periodically revised and, where necessary, updated. Objectives: The aims of the study were 1) to summarise the available evidence on the effect of long-term exposure to ozone (O-3) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) on mortality; 2) and to assess concentration response functions (CRF), their shape and the minimum level of exposures measured in studies to support WHO's update of the global air quality guidelines. Data sources: We conducted a systematic literature search of the Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases following a protocol proposed by WHO and applied Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for reporting our results. Study eligibility criteria: Cohort studies in human populations (including sub-groups at risk) exposed to long-term concentrations of NO2 and O-3. Outcomes assessed were all-cause, respiratory, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and Acute Lower Respiratory Infection (ALRI) mortality. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: Studies included in the meta-analyses were assessed using a new Risk of Bias instrument developed by a group of experts convened by WHO. Study results are presented in forest plots and quantitative meta-analyses were conducted using random effects models. The certainty of evidence was assessed using a newly developed adaptation of GRADE. Results: The review identified 2068 studies of which 95 were subject to full-text review with 45 meeting the inclusion criteria. An update in September 2018 identified 159 studies with 1 meeting the inclusion criteria. Of the 46 included studies, 41 reported results for NO2 and 20 for O-3. The majority of studies were from the USA and Europe with the remainder from Canada, China and Japan. Forty-two studies reported results for all-cause mortality and 22 for respiratory mortality. Associations for NO2 and mortality were positive; random-effects summary relative risks (RR) were 1.02 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.04), 1.03 (1.00, 1.05), 1.03 (1.01, 1.04) and 1.06 (1.02, 1.10) per 10 mu g/m(3) for all-cause (24 cohorts), respiratory (15 cohorts), COPD (9 cohorts) and ALRI (5 cohorts) mortality respectively. The review identified high levels of heterogeneity for all causes of death except COPD. A small number of studies investigated the shape of the concentration-response relationship and generally found little evidence to reject the assumption of linearity across the concentration range. Studies of O-3 using annual metrics showed the associations with all-cause and respiratory mortality were 0.97 (0.93, 1.02) and 0.99 (0.89, 1.11) per 10 mu g/m(3) respectively. For studies using peak O-3 metrics, the association with all-cause mortality was 1.01 (1.00, 1.02) and for respiratory mortality 1.02 (0.99, 1.05), each per 10 mu g/m(3). The review identified high levels of heterogeneity. Few studies investigated the shape of the concentration-response relationship. Certainty in the associations (adapted GRADE) with mortality was rated low to moderate for each exposureoutcome pair, except for NO2 and COPD mortality which was rated high. Limitations: The substantial heterogeneity for most outcomes in the review requires explanation. The evidence base is limited in terms of the geographical spread of the study populations and, for some outcomes, the small number of independent cohorts for meta-analysis precludes meaningful meta-regression to explore causes of heterogeneity. Relatively few studies assessed specifically the shape of the CRF or multi-pollutant models. Conclusions: The short-comings in the existing literature base makes determining the precise nature (magnitude and linearity) of the associations challenging. Certainty of evidence assessments were moderate or low for both NO2 and O-3 for all causes of mortality except for NO2 and COPD mortality where the certainty of the evidence was judged as high.

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

4.8
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