4.5 Article

The Clinical Utility of Pollen Counts

期刊

CLINICAL REVIEWS IN ALLERGY & IMMUNOLOGY
卷 57, 期 3, 页码 340-349

出版社

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12016-018-8698-8

关键词

Pollen; Ragweed; Allergic rhinitis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this review, we describe how pollen counts are performed, the health effects caused by exposure to varying amounts of pollen, the clinical utility of reporting pollen counts to the public, and how that information can be used by patients who have allergies to improve their health. The public is very interested in pollen counts, particularly if the counts provide a forecast of expected pollen exposure for the next few days. Traditional pollen counts are labor-intensive; poorly distributed; and, since the counts are usually 1-day-old, do not provide forecasts that can be acted on. New methods that provide short- and long-term pollen forecasts can provide this information to allergic individuals so that they can respond to changing outdoor conditions. Studies of the relationship between artificial and natural exposure to pollen and development of symptoms have provided improved understanding into how much pollen it takes to cause symptoms. Thresholds for pollen counts that trigger symptoms vary by pollen type, sensitivity of the population, and interactions with other atmospheric exposures. Strategies to inform the public when the pollen count poses a health risk have been proposed along with computerized systems that provide personalized pollen alerts. The best performing public notification system was a traffic light system that reported pollen exposure as low, 0-30; intermediate, 31-50; or high, 51-150. This system outperformed other threshold systems used in Sweden and in Britain/Denmark. Continued improvements in pollen forecasting models combined with data provided by automated pollen counters and better public reporting should permit allergic individuals and urban planners to adapt effectively to changes in outdoor aeroallergen exposures.

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