4.7 Article

Weather as physiologically equivalent was not associated with ischemic stroke onsets in Vienna, 2004-2010

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 22, 期 11, 页码 8756-8762

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-015-4494-7

关键词

Stroke; Risk factor; Weather; Biometeorology; Hospital admissions

资金

  1. University of Exeter Outward Mobility Fellowship
  2. Global Platform for Research Leaders scheme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stroke rates were found to have seasonal variations. However, previous studies using air temperature, humidity, or air pressure separately were not adequate, and the study catchment was not clearly drawn. Therefore, here we proposed to use a thermal index called physiologically equivalent temperature (PET) that incorporates air temperature, humidity, wind speed, cloud cover, air pressure and radiation flux from a biometeorological approach to estimate the effect of weather as physiologically equivalent on ischemic stroke onsets in an Austrian population. Eight thousand four hundred eleven stroke events in Vienna registered within the Austrian Stroke Unit Register from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2010 were included and were correlated with the weather data, obtained from the Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics in the same area and study time period and calculated as PET (degrees C). Statistical analysis involved Poisson regression modeling. The median age was 74 years, and men made up 49 % of the entire population. Eighty percent had hypertension while 25.4 % were current smokers. Of note, 26.5 % had diabetes mellitus, 28.9 % had pre-stroke, and 11.5 % had pre-myocardial infarction. We have observed that onsets were higher on the weekdays than on the weekend. However, we did not find any significant association between PETs and ischemic stroke onsets by subtypes in Vienna. We did not observe any significant associations between PETs and ischemic stroke onsets by subtypes in Vienna. Hospital admission peaks on the weekdays might be due to hospital administration reasons.

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

4.7
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