1Department of Preventive Medicine, Dankook University College of Medicine, Cheonan, Korea
2Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Inha University School of Medicine, Incheon, Korea
3Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Gachon University Gil Medical Center, Incheon, Korea
Copyright © 2016 The Korean Society for Preventive Medicine
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
1) The subject of study was limited to children and adolescents under the age of 20.
2) Study results were limited to computerized records of hospital admissions and ED visits. Outpatient visits were excluded. Hospital admissions confirmed through interviews were not eligible. Subjective symptoms, decrease in pulmonary function, and use of emergency inhalers were not considered endpoints.
3) Effect estimates had to be presented as an odds ratio (OR) or RR.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors have no conflicts of interest associated with the material presented in this paper.
Author (publication year) [Ref] | Study period | Location | Sample | Exposure assessment | Outcome | Study design | Statistical model | PM25 arithmetic mean concentration (μg/m3)(SD) | Major effect estimates (risk ratio) (95% CIs) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Norris et al. (1999) [7] | Sep 1, 1995-Dec 31, 1996 | Seattle, USA | <18y, 900 patients | 3 Fixed sites; a daily arithmetic mean was calculated and used | ED visits | TS | GAM with Poisson distribution | 12.0 (9.5) | Single-pollutant model |
1.15 (1.08, 1.23) for 1-d lag IQR increase | |||||||||
Multi-pollutant model with SO2 and NO2 | |||||||||
1.17 (1.08, 1.26) for 1-d lag IQR increase | |||||||||
Lin et al. (2002) [8] | Jan 1, 1981-Dec 31, 1993 | Toronto, Canada | 6-12 y, 7319 (boys: 4629, girls: 2690) patients | 1 Fixed site; the authors obtained data on every 6-d period from 1984 to 1990 and instructed a daily predicted value via modeling | HA | TS and CCD | GAM and conditional logistic regression | 18.0 (8.5) | Single-pollutant model |
(a) Boys, | |||||||||
1.00 (0.97, 1.04) for the same day IQR increase in TS | |||||||||
1.01 (0.97, 1.06) for the same day IQR increase in CCD | |||||||||
(b) Girls, | |||||||||
1.06 (0.99, 1.13) for 5-d average IQR increase in TS | |||||||||
1.04 (0.95, 1.15) for 5-d average IQR increase in CCD | |||||||||
Multi-pollutant model with CO, SO2, NO2 and O3 | |||||||||
(a) Boys, | |||||||||
0.96 (0.90, 1.02) for 5-d average IQR increase in TS | |||||||||
0.94 (0.85, 1.03) for 5-d average IQR increase in CCD | |||||||||
(b) Girls, | |||||||||
1.01 (0.93, 1.10) for 5-d average IQR increase in TS | |||||||||
0.96 (0.85, 1.09) for 5-d average IQR increase in CCD | |||||||||
Lee et al. (2006) [29] | Jan 1, 1997-Dec 31, 2002 | Hong Kong, China | ≤18 y, 26 663 patients | 13 Fixed sites (before 2000, 11 sites); a daily arithmetic mean was calculated and used | HA | TS | GAM with Poisson distribution | 45.3 (16.2) | Single-pollutant model |
1.066 (1.045, 1.087) for 4-d lag IQR increase | |||||||||
Multi-pollutant model with CO, SO2, NO2 and O3 | |||||||||
1.032 (1.009, 1.056) for 1-d lag IQR increase | |||||||||
Ko et al. (2007) [30] | Jan 1, 2000-Dec 31, 2005 | Hong Kong, China | ≤14 y, 23 596 patients | 3 Fixed sites; a daily arithmetic mean was calculated and used | HA | TS | GAM with Poisson distribution | 65.4 (21.1) | Single-pollutant model |
1.024 (1.013, 1.034) for 5-d average 10 μg/m3 increase | |||||||||
Villneneuve et al. (2007) [9] | Jan 1, 1998-Mar 31, 2002 | Edmonton, Canada | 2-4 y, 7247 patients; | 3 Fixed sites; a daily arithmetic mean was calculated and used | ED visits | CCD | Conditional logistic regression | 7.01 in Apr to Sep; 7.31 in Oct to Mar | Single-pollutant model: |
5-14 y, 13 145 patients | (a) 2-4 y, | ||||||||
1.06 (0.97, 1.15) for 5-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
- Oct to Mar: 0.95 (0.84, 1.07) | |||||||||
- Apr to Sep: 1.16 (1.04, 1.28) | |||||||||
(b) 5-14 y, | |||||||||
1.06 (1.00, 1.12) for 5-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
- Oct to Mar: 0.99 (0.91, 1.09) | |||||||||
- Apr to Sep: 1.10 (1.02, 1.17) | |||||||||
Andersen et al. (2008) [10] | Oct 3, 2003-Dec 31, 2004 | Copenhagen, Denmark | 5-18 y, 559 patients in single pollutant model; 318 patients in two-pollutant model | 1 Fixed site; a daily arithmetic mean was calculated and used | HA | TS | GLM with Poisson regression | 10.0 (5.0) | Single-pollutant model |
1.15 (1.00, 1.32) for 6-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
Two-pollutant model with total number concentration of particles | |||||||||
1.13 (0.98, 1.32) for 6-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
Halonen et al. (2008) [11] | Jan 1, 1998-Dec 31, 2004 | Helsinki, Finland | <15y, 4807 patients | Fixed monitoring site, no specific information available | ED visits | TS | GLM with Poisson regression | 9.51 | Single-pollutant model |
1.026 (0.083, 1.054) for 4-d lag IQR increase | |||||||||
Jalaludin et al. (2008) [31] | Jan 1, 1997-Dec 31, 2001 | Sydney, Australia | 1-14y, 317 724 patients | 14 Fixed sites; a daily arithmetic mean was calculated and used | ED visits | CCD | Conditional logistic regression | 9.4 (5.1) | Single-pollutant model |
(a) 1-4 y, | |||||||||
1.014 (1.007, 1.021) for the same-day IQR increase | |||||||||
- Warm months: 1.009 (1.002, 1.017) | |||||||||
- Cool months: 1.010 (0.999, 1.024) | |||||||||
(b) 5-9 y, | |||||||||
1.016 (1.005, 1.027) for the same-day IQR increase | |||||||||
- Warm months: 1.013 (1.003, 1.024) | |||||||||
- Cool months: 0.995 (0.976, 1.015) | |||||||||
(c) 10-14 y, | |||||||||
1.012 (.0998, 1.027) for the same-day IQR increase | |||||||||
- Warm months: 1.001 (0.987, 1.024) | |||||||||
- Cool months: 1.017 (0.991, 1.044) | |||||||||
Two-pollutant model with NO2 | |||||||||
(a) 1-4 y, | |||||||||
1.008 (1.001, 1.015) for the same-day IQR increase | |||||||||
(b) 5-9 y, | |||||||||
1.016 (1.006, 1.026) for the same-day IQR increase | |||||||||
(c) 10-14 y, | |||||||||
1.011 (0.999, 1.024) for the same-day IQR increase | |||||||||
Tecer et al. (2008) [12] | Dec 31, 2004-Oct 31, 2005 | ZiDnguldak, Turkey | <15y, 187 patients | 1 Fixed site; a daily arithmetic mean was calculated and used | HA | CCD | Conditional logistic regression | 29.1 (NA) | Single-pollutant model |
1.25 (1.05, 1.50) for 4-d lag 10 μg/m3 increase | |||||||||
1.37 (1.06, 1.76) for 4-d lag IQR increase | |||||||||
Halonen et al. (2010) [13] | Jan 1, 1998-Dec 31, 2004 | Helsinki, Finland | Restricted to the warm season (May to Sep) | 2 Fixed sites; a daily arithmetic mean was calculated and used | ED visits | TS | GAM with Poisson distribution | 8.81 | Two-pollutant model with O3 |
<15 y, 1972 patients | 1.148 (1.038, 1.270) for 5-d average IQR increase | ||||||||
Silverman et al. (2010) [14] | Jan 1, 1999-Dec 31, 2006 | New York City, USA | Restricted to the warm season (Apr to Aug) | 24 Fixed sites; a daily arithmetic mean was calculated and used | HA | TS | GLM with Poisson regression | 131 | Single-pollutant model |
<6 y | (a) <6 y, | ||||||||
- Non-ICU admission: 15 185, | - Non-ICU: 1.14 (1.10, 1.19) for 2-d average IQR increase | ||||||||
- ICU admission: 1141 patients | - ICU: 1.03 (0.91, 1.17) for 2-d average IQR increase | ||||||||
6-18y | (b) 6-18 y, | ||||||||
- Non-ICU admission: 10 332, | - Non-ICU: 1.19 (1.11, 1.27) for 2-d average IQR increase | ||||||||
- ICU admission: 994 patients | - ICU: 1.26 (1.10, 1.44) for 2-d average IQR increase | ||||||||
Two-pollutant model with O3 | |||||||||
(a) <6 y, | |||||||||
- Non-ICU: 1.13 (1.08, 1.18) for 2-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
- ICU: 1.04 (0.91, 1.19) for 2-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
(b) 6-18 y, | |||||||||
- Non-ICU: 1.16 (1.08, 1.23) for 2-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
- ICU: 1.23 (1.07-1.41) for 2-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
Strickland et al. (2010) [15] | Aug 1, 1998-Dec 31, 2004 | Atlanta, USA | 5-17 y, 91 386 patients | 11 Fixed sites; a population-weighting average across monitors was calculated and used | ED visits | TS | GLM with Poisson regression | 16.4 (7.4) | Single-pollutant model |
- Whole period: 1.020 (1.002,1.039) for 3-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
- Warm season: 1.043 (1.016, 1.070) for 3-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
- Cold season: 1.005 (0.978, 1.031) for 3-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
Li et al. (2011) [16] | Jan 1, 2004-Dec 31, 2006 | Detroit, USA | 2-18 y, 7063 patients | 4 Fixed sites; a daily arithmetic mean was calculated and used | ED visits + HA2 | TS and CCD | GAM and conditional logistic regression | 15.0 (7.9) | Single-pollutant model |
1.030 (1.001, 1.061) for 5 d average IQR increase in TS | |||||||||
1.039 (1.013, 1.066) for 5 d average IQR increase in CCD | |||||||||
Glad et al. (2012) [17] | Jan 1, 2002-Dec 31, 2005 | Pittsburgh, USA | 0-17 y, 978 patients | 2 Fixed sites; a daily arithmetic mean was calculated and used | ED visits | CCD | Conditional logistic regression | NA | Single-pollutant model |
1.012 (0.916, 1.118) for the same-day 10 μg/m3 increase | |||||||||
Iskandar et al. (2012) [18] | May 15, 2001-Dec 31, 2008 | Copenhagen, Denmark | 0-18 y, 6329 patients | 1 Fixed site; a daily arithmetic mean was calculated and used | HA | CCD | Conditional logistic regression | 10.3 (5.4) | Single-pollutant model |
1.09 (1.04, 1.13) for 5-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
Two-pollutant model with NO2: | |||||||||
1.06 (1.02, 1.11) for 5-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
Winquist et al. (2012) [19] | Jan 1, 2001-Jun 27, 2007 | St. Louis, USA | 0-1 y. | 1 Fixed site; a daily arithmetic mean was calculated and used | ED visits & HA | TS | GLM with Poisson regression | 14.4 (7.5) | Single-pollutant model |
- ED: 12 236 patients | (a) 0-1 y, | ||||||||
2-18 y. | - ED: 1.047 (0.999, 1.097) for 5-d average IQR increase | ||||||||
- ED: 49 978 patients | (b) 2-18 y, | ||||||||
- All HA: 7095 patients | - ED: 1.050 (1.021,1.080) for 5-d average IQR increase | ||||||||
- HA: 1.052 (0.985, 1.123) for 5-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
Delfino et al. (2014) [20] | Jan 1, 2000-Dec 31, 2008 | California, USA | 0-18 y, 11 390 patients | Subject addresses were geocoded; using a modified, California LINE Source Dispersion Model, version. 4 to estimate pollutants at each residence | ED visits + HA2 | CCD | Conditional logistic regression | - Warm season: 16.0 (9.5) | Single-pollutant model |
- Cool season: 19.0 (13.8) | - Warm season: 1.079 (1.008, 1.154) for 7-d average IQR increase | ||||||||
- Cool season: 1.162 (1.076, 1.254) for 7-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
Gleason et al. (2014) [21] | Jan 1, 2004-Dec 31, 2007 | New Jersey, USA | 3-17 y, 21 854 patients | Subject addresses were geocoded; using 12×12-km grid from the Multi-Scale Air Quality Model to estimate pollutants at each residence | ED visits | CCD | Conditional logistic regression | NA | Single-pollutant model |
1.03 (1.02, 1.04) for the same day IQR increase | |||||||||
Multipollutant model with O3 and other pollens | |||||||||
0.99 (0.98, 1.01) for the same day IQR increase | |||||||||
Hua et al. (2014) [32] | Jan 1, 2007-Jul 31, 2012 | Shanghai, China | 0-14 y, 114 673 patients | 1 Fixed site; a daily arithmetic mean was calculated and used | HA | TS | Polynomial distributed lag model | 40.9 (27.7) | Single-pollutant model |
1.04 (1.02, 1.05) for IQR increase with a maximum lag of 3 d | |||||||||
1.06 (1.05, 1.08) for IQR increase with a maximum lag of 5 d | |||||||||
Multipollutant model with NO2 and SO2 | |||||||||
1.03 (1.02, 1.05) for IQR increase with a maximum lag of 3 d | |||||||||
1.06 (1.04, 1.08) for IQR increase with a maximum lag of 5 d | |||||||||
Strickland et al. (2014) [22] | Jan 1, 2002-Jun 30, 2010 | Atlanta, USA | 2-16 y, 109 758 patients | 6 Fixed sites; a population-weighting average across monitors calculated and used | ED visits | TS | GLM with Poisson regression | 13.3 (5.4) | Single-pollutant model |
1.032 (1.019, 1.044) for 3-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
Two-pollutant model with O3 | |||||||||
1.022 (1.009, 1.035) for 3-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
Wendt et al. (2014) [23] | Jan 1, 2005-Dec 31, 2007 | Boston, USA | 0-17 y | 3 Fixed sites; a daily arithmetic mean was calculated and used | HA | CCD | Conditional logistic regression | 15.0 (6.0) | Single-pollutant model |
- May to Oct: 6061 patients | - May to Oct: 1.10 (1.03, 1.17) for 6-d average IQR increase | ||||||||
- Nov to Apr: 7894 patients | - Nov to April: 1.06 (1.00, 1.14) for 6-d average IQR increase | ||||||||
Two-pollutant model with NO2 | |||||||||
- May to Oct: 1.13 (1.04, 1.24) for 6-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
- Nov to Apr: 1.00 (0.93, 1.07) for 6-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
Byers et al. (2016) [24] | Jan 1, 2007-Dec 31, 2011 | Indianapolis, USA | 5-17 y, 33 981 patients | 3 Fixed sites; a population-weighting average across monitors calculated and used | ED visits | TS | GLM with Poisson regression | 13.6 (7.1) | Single-pollutant model |
- All seasons: 1.007 (0.986, 1.029) for 3-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
- Apr to Sep: 0.985 (0.934, 1.040) for 3-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
- Oct to Mar: 0.976 (0.930, 1.025) for 3-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
Gleason et al. (2015) [25] | Jan 1, 2004-Dec 31, 2007 | Newark, USA | 3-17 y, 3675 patients | Subject addresses were geocoded; using grid from the Multi-Scale Air Quality Model to estimate pollutants at each residence | ED visits | TS and CCD | GLM and conditional logistic regression | NA | Single-pollutant model |
1.00 (0.96, 1.05) for 3-d average IQR increase in TS | |||||||||
1.00 (0.96, 1.04) for 3-d average IQR increase in CCD | |||||||||
Multipollutant model with O3 and other pollens | |||||||||
0.93 (0.89, 0.98) for 3-d average IQR increase in TS | |||||||||
0.95 (0.91, 1.00) for 3-d average IQR increase in CCD | |||||||||
Strickland et al. (2015) [26] | Jan 1, 2002-Jun 30, 2010 | Georgia, USA | 2-18 y, 189 816 patients | Subject addresses were geocoded; using a two-stage model that includes land use parameters and satellite aerosol optical depth measurements at 1-km resolution to estimate pollutants | ED visits | CCD | Conditional logistic regression | 12.91 | Single-pollutant model |
1.013 (1.003, 1.023) for the same day 10 μg/m3 increase | |||||||||
Alhanti et al. (2016) [27] | Jan 1, 2006-Dec 31, 2009 | Dallas, USA | 0-4 y, mean daily counts: 16.91 patients | All available monitors; the monitoring data were first spatially interpolated across the study’s geographic domain and then a population-weighted average across monitors calculated and used | ED visits | TS | GLM with Poisson regression | 11.1 (4.7) | Single-pollutant model |
5-18 y, mean daily counts: 25.75 patients | 0-4 y, 0.98 (0.94, 1.02) for 3-d average IQR increase | ||||||||
5-18 y, 0.99 (0.95, 1.03) for 3-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
Weichenthal et al. (2016) [28] | Jan 1, 2004-Dec 31, 2011 | Ontario, Canada | Total; 127 836 patients, | Fixed site in Ontario which is part of Canada’s National Air Pollution Surveillance network; a daily arithmetic mean was calculated and used | ED visits | CCD | Conditional logistic regression | 7.1 (6.3) | Single-pollutant model |
<9y, NA | 1.072 (1.042, 1.100) for 3-d average IQR increase |
Ref, reference number; HA, hospital admission; ED, emergency department; GLM, generalized linear model; GAM, generalized additive model; NA, not available; IQR, interquartile range; TS, time series; CCD, case-crossover design; PM, particulate matter; SD, standard devaition; CI, confidence interval; ICU, intensive care unit; CO, carbon monoxide; SO2, sulfur dioxide; NO2, nitrogen dioxide; O3, ozone.
1 Median value of the daily PM2.5 distribution during the entire study period. This study doesn’t present the arithmetic mean of PM2.5.
2 The authors regarded asthma morbidity as hospital encounters which counted both HA and ED visits.
No. of study (no. of estimate) | RR (95% CIs)1 | I2 (%) | |
---|---|---|---|
Age2 | |||
< 5 | 7 (9) | 1.044 (1.017, 1.071) | 81.9 |
5-18 | 12 (15) | 1.027 (1.011, 1.043) | 76.8 |
Outcome | |||
HA | 10 (15) | 1.048 (1.029, 1.067) | 77.7 |
ED visits | 15 (17) | 1.027 (1.011, 1.044) | 79.5 |
Season | |||
Cold | 7 (8) | 1.015 (0.994, 1.037) | 57.1 |
Warm | 9 (11) | 1.085 (1.051, 1.119) | 94.8 |
Study design | |||
TS | 15 (19) | 1.028 (1.015, 1.041) | 76.9 |
CCD | 13 (17) | 1.051 (1.020, 1.084) | 96.6 |
Area | |||
North America | 14 (19) | 1.047 (1.019, 1.076) | 96.1 |
Europe | 8 (11) | 1.075 (1.030, 1.123) | 65.9 |
China | 3 (3) | 1.019 (1.013, 1.025) | 0.0 |
Multipollutant model | |||
No | 25 (33) | 1.054 (1.037, 1.071) | 96.0 |
Yes | 13 (18) | 1.040 (1.022, 1.057) | 83.1 |
Time lag (d) | |||
0 (same day) | 12 (14) | 1.018 (1.005, 1.028) | 60.9 |
1 | 11 (13) | 1.018 (1.005, 1.030) | 59.6 |
2 | 8 (8) | 1.002 (0.984, 1.021) | 84.6 |
3 | 10 (11) | 1.030 (1.015, 1.045) | 66.6 |
4 | 4 (4) | 1.016 (0.969, 1.065) | 83.1 |
5 | 5 (6) | 1.019 (0.975, 1.065) | 93.5 |
Average | |||
2 | 3 (7) | 1.065 (1.020, 1.113) | 81.7 |
3 | 11 (15) | 1.019 (1.006, 1.033) | 82.2 |
5 | 10 (14) | 1.025 (1.007, 1.043) | 77.4 |
6 | 3 (5) | 1.029 (0.938, 1.129) | 69.9 |
Author (publication year) [Ref] | Study period | Location | Sample | Exposure assessment | Outcome | Study design | Statistical model | PM25 arithmetic mean concentration (μg/m3)(SD) | Major effect estimates (risk ratio) (95% CIs) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Norris et al. (1999) [7] | Sep 1, 1995-Dec 31, 1996 | Seattle, USA | <18y, 900 patients | 3 Fixed sites; a daily arithmetic mean was calculated and used | ED visits | TS | GAM with Poisson distribution | 12.0 (9.5) | Single-pollutant model |
1.15 (1.08, 1.23) for 1-d lag IQR increase | |||||||||
Multi-pollutant model with SO2 and NO2 | |||||||||
1.17 (1.08, 1.26) for 1-d lag IQR increase | |||||||||
Lin et al. (2002) [8] | Jan 1, 1981-Dec 31, 1993 | Toronto, Canada | 6-12 y, 7319 (boys: 4629, girls: 2690) patients | 1 Fixed site; the authors obtained data on every 6-d period from 1984 to 1990 and instructed a daily predicted value via modeling | HA | TS and CCD | GAM and conditional logistic regression | 18.0 (8.5) | Single-pollutant model |
(a) Boys, | |||||||||
1.00 (0.97, 1.04) for the same day IQR increase in TS | |||||||||
1.01 (0.97, 1.06) for the same day IQR increase in CCD | |||||||||
(b) Girls, | |||||||||
1.06 (0.99, 1.13) for 5-d average IQR increase in TS | |||||||||
1.04 (0.95, 1.15) for 5-d average IQR increase in CCD | |||||||||
Multi-pollutant model with CO, SO2, NO2 and O3 | |||||||||
(a) Boys, | |||||||||
0.96 (0.90, 1.02) for 5-d average IQR increase in TS | |||||||||
0.94 (0.85, 1.03) for 5-d average IQR increase in CCD | |||||||||
(b) Girls, | |||||||||
1.01 (0.93, 1.10) for 5-d average IQR increase in TS | |||||||||
0.96 (0.85, 1.09) for 5-d average IQR increase in CCD | |||||||||
Lee et al. (2006) [29] | Jan 1, 1997-Dec 31, 2002 | Hong Kong, China | ≤18 y, 26 663 patients | 13 Fixed sites (before 2000, 11 sites); a daily arithmetic mean was calculated and used | HA | TS | GAM with Poisson distribution | 45.3 (16.2) | Single-pollutant model |
1.066 (1.045, 1.087) for 4-d lag IQR increase | |||||||||
Multi-pollutant model with CO, SO2, NO2 and O3 | |||||||||
1.032 (1.009, 1.056) for 1-d lag IQR increase | |||||||||
Ko et al. (2007) [30] | Jan 1, 2000-Dec 31, 2005 | Hong Kong, China | ≤14 y, 23 596 patients | 3 Fixed sites; a daily arithmetic mean was calculated and used | HA | TS | GAM with Poisson distribution | 65.4 (21.1) | Single-pollutant model |
1.024 (1.013, 1.034) for 5-d average 10 μg/m3 increase | |||||||||
Villneneuve et al. (2007) [9] | Jan 1, 1998-Mar 31, 2002 | Edmonton, Canada | 2-4 y, 7247 patients; | 3 Fixed sites; a daily arithmetic mean was calculated and used | ED visits | CCD | Conditional logistic regression | 7.0 |
Single-pollutant model: |
5-14 y, 13 145 patients | (a) 2-4 y, | ||||||||
1.06 (0.97, 1.15) for 5-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
- Oct to Mar: 0.95 (0.84, 1.07) | |||||||||
- Apr to Sep: 1.16 (1.04, 1.28) | |||||||||
(b) 5-14 y, | |||||||||
1.06 (1.00, 1.12) for 5-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
- Oct to Mar: 0.99 (0.91, 1.09) | |||||||||
- Apr to Sep: 1.10 (1.02, 1.17) | |||||||||
Andersen et al. (2008) [10] | Oct 3, 2003-Dec 31, 2004 | Copenhagen, Denmark | 5-18 y, 559 patients in single pollutant model; 318 patients in two-pollutant model | 1 Fixed site; a daily arithmetic mean was calculated and used | HA | TS | GLM with Poisson regression | 10.0 (5.0) | Single-pollutant model |
1.15 (1.00, 1.32) for 6-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
Two-pollutant model with total number concentration of particles | |||||||||
1.13 (0.98, 1.32) for 6-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
Halonen et al. (2008) [11] | Jan 1, 1998-Dec 31, 2004 | Helsinki, Finland | <15y, 4807 patients | Fixed monitoring site, no specific information available | ED visits | TS | GLM with Poisson regression | 9.5 |
Single-pollutant model |
1.026 (0.083, 1.054) for 4-d lag IQR increase | |||||||||
Jalaludin et al. (2008) [31] | Jan 1, 1997-Dec 31, 2001 | Sydney, Australia | 1-14y, 317 724 patients | 14 Fixed sites; a daily arithmetic mean was calculated and used | ED visits | CCD | Conditional logistic regression | 9.4 (5.1) | Single-pollutant model |
(a) 1-4 y, | |||||||||
1.014 (1.007, 1.021) for the same-day IQR increase | |||||||||
- Warm months: 1.009 (1.002, 1.017) | |||||||||
- Cool months: 1.010 (0.999, 1.024) | |||||||||
(b) 5-9 y, | |||||||||
1.016 (1.005, 1.027) for the same-day IQR increase | |||||||||
- Warm months: 1.013 (1.003, 1.024) | |||||||||
- Cool months: 0.995 (0.976, 1.015) | |||||||||
(c) 10-14 y, | |||||||||
1.012 (.0998, 1.027) for the same-day IQR increase | |||||||||
- Warm months: 1.001 (0.987, 1.024) | |||||||||
- Cool months: 1.017 (0.991, 1.044) | |||||||||
Two-pollutant model with NO2 | |||||||||
(a) 1-4 y, | |||||||||
1.008 (1.001, 1.015) for the same-day IQR increase | |||||||||
(b) 5-9 y, | |||||||||
1.016 (1.006, 1.026) for the same-day IQR increase | |||||||||
(c) 10-14 y, | |||||||||
1.011 (0.999, 1.024) for the same-day IQR increase | |||||||||
Tecer et al. (2008) [12] | Dec 31, 2004-Oct 31, 2005 | ZiDnguldak, Turkey | <15y, 187 patients | 1 Fixed site; a daily arithmetic mean was calculated and used | HA | CCD | Conditional logistic regression | 29.1 (NA) | Single-pollutant model |
1.25 (1.05, 1.50) for 4-d lag 10 μg/m3 increase | |||||||||
1.37 (1.06, 1.76) for 4-d lag IQR increase | |||||||||
Halonen et al. (2010) [13] | Jan 1, 1998-Dec 31, 2004 | Helsinki, Finland | Restricted to the warm season (May to Sep) | 2 Fixed sites; a daily arithmetic mean was calculated and used | ED visits | TS | GAM with Poisson distribution | 8.8 |
Two-pollutant model with O3 |
<15 y, 1972 patients | 1.148 (1.038, 1.270) for 5-d average IQR increase | ||||||||
Silverman et al. (2010) [14] | Jan 1, 1999-Dec 31, 2006 | New York City, USA | Restricted to the warm season (Apr to Aug) | 24 Fixed sites; a daily arithmetic mean was calculated and used | HA | TS | GLM with Poisson regression | 13 |
Single-pollutant model |
<6 y | (a) <6 y, | ||||||||
- Non-ICU admission: 15 185, | - Non-ICU: 1.14 (1.10, 1.19) for 2-d average IQR increase | ||||||||
- ICU admission: 1141 patients | - ICU: 1.03 (0.91, 1.17) for 2-d average IQR increase | ||||||||
6-18y | (b) 6-18 y, | ||||||||
- Non-ICU admission: 10 332, | - Non-ICU: 1.19 (1.11, 1.27) for 2-d average IQR increase | ||||||||
- ICU admission: 994 patients | - ICU: 1.26 (1.10, 1.44) for 2-d average IQR increase | ||||||||
Two-pollutant model with O3 | |||||||||
(a) <6 y, | |||||||||
- Non-ICU: 1.13 (1.08, 1.18) for 2-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
- ICU: 1.04 (0.91, 1.19) for 2-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
(b) 6-18 y, | |||||||||
- Non-ICU: 1.16 (1.08, 1.23) for 2-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
- ICU: 1.23 (1.07-1.41) for 2-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
Strickland et al. (2010) [15] | Aug 1, 1998-Dec 31, 2004 | Atlanta, USA | 5-17 y, 91 386 patients | 11 Fixed sites; a population-weighting average across monitors was calculated and used | ED visits | TS | GLM with Poisson regression | 16.4 (7.4) | Single-pollutant model |
- Whole period: 1.020 (1.002,1.039) for 3-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
- Warm season: 1.043 (1.016, 1.070) for 3-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
- Cold season: 1.005 (0.978, 1.031) for 3-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
Li et al. (2011) [16] | Jan 1, 2004-Dec 31, 2006 | Detroit, USA | 2-18 y, 7063 patients | 4 Fixed sites; a daily arithmetic mean was calculated and used | ED visits + HA |
TS and CCD | GAM and conditional logistic regression | 15.0 (7.9) | Single-pollutant model |
1.030 (1.001, 1.061) for 5 d average IQR increase in TS | |||||||||
1.039 (1.013, 1.066) for 5 d average IQR increase in CCD | |||||||||
Glad et al. (2012) [17] | Jan 1, 2002-Dec 31, 2005 | Pittsburgh, USA | 0-17 y, 978 patients | 2 Fixed sites; a daily arithmetic mean was calculated and used | ED visits | CCD | Conditional logistic regression | NA | Single-pollutant model |
1.012 (0.916, 1.118) for the same-day 10 μg/m3 increase | |||||||||
Iskandar et al. (2012) [18] | May 15, 2001-Dec 31, 2008 | Copenhagen, Denmark | 0-18 y, 6329 patients | 1 Fixed site; a daily arithmetic mean was calculated and used | HA | CCD | Conditional logistic regression | 10.3 (5.4) | Single-pollutant model |
1.09 (1.04, 1.13) for 5-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
Two-pollutant model with NO2: | |||||||||
1.06 (1.02, 1.11) for 5-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
Winquist et al. (2012) [19] | Jan 1, 2001-Jun 27, 2007 | St. Louis, USA | 0-1 y. | 1 Fixed site; a daily arithmetic mean was calculated and used | ED visits & HA | TS | GLM with Poisson regression | 14.4 (7.5) | Single-pollutant model |
- ED: 12 236 patients | (a) 0-1 y, | ||||||||
2-18 y. | - ED: 1.047 (0.999, 1.097) for 5-d average IQR increase | ||||||||
- ED: 49 978 patients | (b) 2-18 y, | ||||||||
- All HA: 7095 patients | - ED: 1.050 (1.021,1.080) for 5-d average IQR increase | ||||||||
- HA: 1.052 (0.985, 1.123) for 5-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
Delfino et al. (2014) [20] | Jan 1, 2000-Dec 31, 2008 | California, USA | 0-18 y, 11 390 patients | Subject addresses were geocoded; using a modified, California LINE Source Dispersion Model, version. 4 to estimate pollutants at each residence | ED visits + HA |
CCD | Conditional logistic regression | - Warm season: 16.0 (9.5) | Single-pollutant model |
- Cool season: 19.0 (13.8) | - Warm season: 1.079 (1.008, 1.154) for 7-d average IQR increase | ||||||||
- Cool season: 1.162 (1.076, 1.254) for 7-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
Gleason et al. (2014) [21] | Jan 1, 2004-Dec 31, 2007 | New Jersey, USA | 3-17 y, 21 854 patients | Subject addresses were geocoded; using 12×12-km grid from the Multi-Scale Air Quality Model to estimate pollutants at each residence | ED visits | CCD | Conditional logistic regression | NA | Single-pollutant model |
1.03 (1.02, 1.04) for the same day IQR increase | |||||||||
Multipollutant model with O3 and other pollens | |||||||||
0.99 (0.98, 1.01) for the same day IQR increase | |||||||||
Hua et al. (2014) [32] | Jan 1, 2007-Jul 31, 2012 | Shanghai, China | 0-14 y, 114 673 patients | 1 Fixed site; a daily arithmetic mean was calculated and used | HA | TS | Polynomial distributed lag model | 40.9 (27.7) | Single-pollutant model |
1.04 (1.02, 1.05) for IQR increase with a maximum lag of 3 d | |||||||||
1.06 (1.05, 1.08) for IQR increase with a maximum lag of 5 d | |||||||||
Multipollutant model with NO2 and SO2 | |||||||||
1.03 (1.02, 1.05) for IQR increase with a maximum lag of 3 d | |||||||||
1.06 (1.04, 1.08) for IQR increase with a maximum lag of 5 d | |||||||||
Strickland et al. (2014) [22] | Jan 1, 2002-Jun 30, 2010 | Atlanta, USA | 2-16 y, 109 758 patients | 6 Fixed sites; a population-weighting average across monitors calculated and used | ED visits | TS | GLM with Poisson regression | 13.3 (5.4) | Single-pollutant model |
1.032 (1.019, 1.044) for 3-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
Two-pollutant model with O3 | |||||||||
1.022 (1.009, 1.035) for 3-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
Wendt et al. (2014) [23] | Jan 1, 2005-Dec 31, 2007 | Boston, USA | 0-17 y | 3 Fixed sites; a daily arithmetic mean was calculated and used | HA | CCD | Conditional logistic regression | 15.0 (6.0) | Single-pollutant model |
- May to Oct: 6061 patients | - May to Oct: 1.10 (1.03, 1.17) for 6-d average IQR increase | ||||||||
- Nov to Apr: 7894 patients | - Nov to April: 1.06 (1.00, 1.14) for 6-d average IQR increase | ||||||||
Two-pollutant model with NO2 | |||||||||
- May to Oct: 1.13 (1.04, 1.24) for 6-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
- Nov to Apr: 1.00 (0.93, 1.07) for 6-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
Byers et al. (2016) [24] | Jan 1, 2007-Dec 31, 2011 | Indianapolis, USA | 5-17 y, 33 981 patients | 3 Fixed sites; a population-weighting average across monitors calculated and used | ED visits | TS | GLM with Poisson regression | 13.6 (7.1) | Single-pollutant model |
- All seasons: 1.007 (0.986, 1.029) for 3-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
- Apr to Sep: 0.985 (0.934, 1.040) for 3-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
- Oct to Mar: 0.976 (0.930, 1.025) for 3-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
Gleason et al. (2015) [25] | Jan 1, 2004-Dec 31, 2007 | Newark, USA | 3-17 y, 3675 patients | Subject addresses were geocoded; using grid from the Multi-Scale Air Quality Model to estimate pollutants at each residence | ED visits | TS and CCD | GLM and conditional logistic regression | NA | Single-pollutant model |
1.00 (0.96, 1.05) for 3-d average IQR increase in TS | |||||||||
1.00 (0.96, 1.04) for 3-d average IQR increase in CCD | |||||||||
Multipollutant model with O3 and other pollens | |||||||||
0.93 (0.89, 0.98) for 3-d average IQR increase in TS | |||||||||
0.95 (0.91, 1.00) for 3-d average IQR increase in CCD | |||||||||
Strickland et al. (2015) [26] | Jan 1, 2002-Jun 30, 2010 | Georgia, USA | 2-18 y, 189 816 patients | Subject addresses were geocoded; using a two-stage model that includes land use parameters and satellite aerosol optical depth measurements at 1-km resolution to estimate pollutants | ED visits | CCD | Conditional logistic regression | 12.9 |
Single-pollutant model |
1.013 (1.003, 1.023) for the same day 10 μg/m3 increase | |||||||||
Alhanti et al. (2016) [27] | Jan 1, 2006-Dec 31, 2009 | Dallas, USA | 0-4 y, mean daily counts: 16.91 patients | All available monitors; the monitoring data were first spatially interpolated across the study’s geographic domain and then a population-weighted average across monitors calculated and used | ED visits | TS | GLM with Poisson regression | 11.1 (4.7) | Single-pollutant model |
5-18 y, mean daily counts: 25.75 patients | 0-4 y, 0.98 (0.94, 1.02) for 3-d average IQR increase | ||||||||
5-18 y, 0.99 (0.95, 1.03) for 3-d average IQR increase | |||||||||
Weichenthal et al. (2016) [28] | Jan 1, 2004-Dec 31, 2011 | Ontario, Canada | Total; 127 836 patients, | Fixed site in Ontario which is part of Canada’s National Air Pollution Surveillance network; a daily arithmetic mean was calculated and used | ED visits | CCD | Conditional logistic regression | 7.1 (6.3) | Single-pollutant model |
<9y, NA | 1.072 (1.042, 1.100) for 3-d average IQR increase |
No. of study (no. of estimate) | RR (95% CIs) |
I |
|
---|---|---|---|
Age |
|||
< 5 | 7 (9) | 1.044 (1.017, 1.071) | 81.9 |
5-18 | 12 (15) | 1.027 (1.011, 1.043) | 76.8 |
Outcome | |||
HA | 10 (15) | 1.048 (1.029, 1.067) | 77.7 |
ED visits | 15 (17) | 1.027 (1.011, 1.044) | 79.5 |
Season | |||
Cold | 7 (8) | 1.015 (0.994, 1.037) | 57.1 |
Warm | 9 (11) | 1.085 (1.051, 1.119) | 94.8 |
Study design | |||
TS | 15 (19) | 1.028 (1.015, 1.041) | 76.9 |
CCD | 13 (17) | 1.051 (1.020, 1.084) | 96.6 |
Area | |||
North America | 14 (19) | 1.047 (1.019, 1.076) | 96.1 |
Europe | 8 (11) | 1.075 (1.030, 1.123) | 65.9 |
China | 3 (3) | 1.019 (1.013, 1.025) | 0.0 |
Multipollutant model | |||
No | 25 (33) | 1.054 (1.037, 1.071) | 96.0 |
Yes | 13 (18) | 1.040 (1.022, 1.057) | 83.1 |
Time lag (d) | |||
0 (same day) | 12 (14) | 1.018 (1.005, 1.028) | 60.9 |
1 | 11 (13) | 1.018 (1.005, 1.030) | 59.6 |
2 | 8 (8) | 1.002 (0.984, 1.021) | 84.6 |
3 | 10 (11) | 1.030 (1.015, 1.045) | 66.6 |
4 | 4 (4) | 1.016 (0.969, 1.065) | 83.1 |
5 | 5 (6) | 1.019 (0.975, 1.065) | 93.5 |
Average | |||
2 | 3 (7) | 1.065 (1.020, 1.113) | 81.7 |
3 | 11 (15) | 1.019 (1.006, 1.033) | 82.2 |
5 | 10 (14) | 1.025 (1.007, 1.043) | 77.4 |
6 | 3 (5) | 1.029 (0.938, 1.129) | 69.9 |
Ref, reference number; HA, hospital admission; ED, emergency department; GLM, generalized linear model; GAM, generalized additive model; NA, not available; IQR, interquartile range; TS, time series; CCD, case-crossover design; PM, particulate matter; SD, standard devaition; CI, confidence interval; ICU, intensive care unit; CO, carbon monoxide; SO2, sulfur dioxide; NO2, nitrogen dioxide; O3, ozone. Median value of the daily PM2.5 distribution during the entire study period. This study doesn’t present the arithmetic mean of PM2.5. The authors regarded asthma morbidity as hospital encounters which counted both HA and ED visits.
RR, relative risk; CI, confidence interval; HA, hospital admission; ED, emergency department; TS, time-series; CCD, case-crossover design. Calculated by DerSimonian and Laird random effects model [ There are two exceptions: Silverman et al. [