4.5 Review

Is exposure to secondhand smoke associated with cognitive parameters of children and adolescents?-a systematic literature review

期刊

ANNALS OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 23, 期 10, 页码 652-661

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2013.07.001

关键词

Environmental Tobacco Smoke Pollution; Secondhand smoking; Cognition; Intelligence

资金

  1. Alzheimer's Research UK [ART/PPG2007B/2]
  2. BUPA Foundation UK [45NOV06, TBF-M09-05]
  3. BUPA Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Despite the known association of second hand smoke (SHS) with increased risk of ill health and mortality, the effects of SHS exposure on cognitive functioning in children and adolescents are unclear. Through a critical review of the literature we sought to determine whether a relationship exists between these variables. Methods: The authors systematically reviewed articles (dated 1989-2012) that investigated the association between SHS exposure (including in utero due to SHS exposure by pregnant women) and performance on neurocognitive and academic tests. Eligible studies were identified from searches of Web of Knowledge, MEDLINE, Science Direct, Google Scholar, CINAHL, EMBASE, Zetoc, and Clinicaltrials.gov. Results: Fifteen articles were identified, of which 12 showed inverse relationships between SHS and cognitive parameters. Prenatal SHS exposure was inversely associated with neurodevelopmental outcomes in young children, whereas postnatal SHS exposure was associated with poor academic achievement and neurocognitive performance in older children and adolescents. Furthermore, SHS exposure was associated with an increased risk of neurodevelopmental delay. Conclusions: Recommendations should be made to the public to avoid sources of SHS and future research should investigate interactions between SHS exposure and other risk factors for delayed neurodevelopment and poor cognitive performance. (c) 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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