-
Health Technology Assessment... 2000Atopic eczema is the commonest inflammatory skin disease of childhood, affecting 15-20% of children in the UK at any one time. Adults make up about one-third of all... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Atopic eczema is the commonest inflammatory skin disease of childhood, affecting 15-20% of children in the UK at any one time. Adults make up about one-third of all community cases. Moderate-to-severe atopic eczema can have a profound effect on the quality of life for both sufferers and their families. In addition to the effects of intractable itching, skin damage, soreness, sleep loss and the social stigma of a visible skin disease, other factors such as frequent visits to doctors, special clothing and¿the need to constantly apply messy topical applications all add to the burden of disease. The cause of atopic eczema is unknown, though a genetic pre-disposition and a combination of allergic and non-allergic factors appear to be important in determining disease expression. Treatment of atopic eczema in the UK is characterised by a profusion of treatments aimed at disease control. The evidential basis of these treatments is often unclear. Most people with atopic eczema are managed in primary care where the least research has been done.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this scoping review are two-fold. To produce an up-to-date coverage 'map' of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of treatments of atopic eczema. To assist in making treatment recommendations by summarising the available RCT evidence using qualitative and quantitative methods.
DATA SOURCES
Data sources included electronic searching of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register, the Cochrane Skin Group specialised register of trials, hand-searching of atopic eczema conference proceedings, follow-up of references in retrieved articles, contact with leading researchers and requests to relevant pharmaceutical companies.
INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA
Only RCTs of therapeutic agents used in the prevention and treatment of people with atopic eczema of any age were considered for inclusion. Only studies where a physician diagnosed atopic eczema or atopic dermatitis were included.
DATA EXTRACTION
Data extraction was conducted by two observers onto abstraction forms, with discrepancies resolved by discussion.
QUALITY ASSESSMENT
The quality assessment of retrieved RCTs included an assessment of: a clear description of method and concealment of allocation of randomisation, the degree to which assessors and participants were blinded to the study interventions, and whether all those originally randomised were included in the final main analysis.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Where possible, quantitative pooling of similar RCTs was conducted using the Cochrane Collaboration's methods. Where statistical heterogeneity was found, sources of heterogeneity in terms of study participants, formulation or posology of intervention, and use of co-treatments were explored. Where pooling was not deemed to be appropriate, detailed descriptions of the study characteristics and main reported results were presented along with comments on study quality.
RESULTS
A total of 1165 possible RCTs were retrieved in hard copy form for further scrutiny. Of these, 893 were excluded from further analysis because of lack of appropriate data. The 272 remaining RCTs of atopic eczema covered at least 47 different interventions, which could be broadly categorised into ten main groups. Quality of reporting was generally poor, and limited statistical pooling was possible only for oral cyclosporin, and only then after considerable data transformation. There was reasonable RCT evidence to support the use of oral cyclosporin, topical corticosteroids, psychological approaches and ultraviolet light therapy. There was insufficient evidence to make recommendations on maternal allergen avoidance for disease prevention, oral antihistamines, Chinese herbs, dietary restriction in established atopic eczema, homeopathy, house dust mite reduction, massage therapy, hypnotherapy, evening primrose oil, emollients, topical coal tar and topical doxepin. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Infective Agents; Clinical Trials as Topic; Complementary Therapies; Dermatitis, Atopic; Desensitization, Immunologic; Diet; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Eczema; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design
PubMed: 11134919
DOI: No ID Found -
Materials (Basel, Switzerland) May 2020Composite dust generation is most likely a continuous and daily procedure in dental practice settings. The aim of this systematic review was to identify, compile and... (Review)
Review
Composite dust generation is most likely a continuous and daily procedure in dental practice settings. The aim of this systematic review was to identify, compile and evaluate existing evidence on interventions and composite material properties related to the production of aerosolized dust during routine dental procedures. Seven electronic databases were searched, with no limits, supplemented by a manual search, on 27 April 2020 for published and unpublished research. Eligibility criteria comprised of studies of any design, describing composite dust production related to the implementation of any procedure in dental practice. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias (RoB) assessment was undertaken independently either in duplicate, or confirmed by a second reviewer. Random effects meta-analyses of standardized mean differences (SMD) with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were employed where applicable. A total of 375 articles were initially identified, resulting in 13 articles being included in the qualitative synthesis, of which 5 contributed to meta-analyses overall. Risk of bias recordings ranged between low and high, pertaining to unclear/raising some concerns, in most cases. All types of composites, irrespective of the filler particles, released significant amounts of nano-sized particles after being ground, with potentially disruptive respiratory effects. Evidence supported increased % distribution of particles < 100 nm for nanocomposite Filtek Supreme XTE compared to both conventional hybrid Z100MP (SMD: 1.96, 95% CI: 0.85, 3.07; p-value; 0.001) and nano- hybrid Tetric EvoCeram (SMD: 1.62, 95% CI: 0.56, 2.68; p-value: 0.003). For cytotoxicity considerations of generated aerosolized particles, both nanocomposites Filtek Supreme XTE and nanohybrid GradiO revealed negative effects on bronchial epithelial cell viability, as represented by % formazan reduction at 330-400 μg/ml for 24 hours, with no recorded differences between them (SMD: 0.19; 95% CI: -0.17, 0.55; p-value: 0.30). Effective and more rigorous management of dental procedures potentially liable to the generation of considerable amounts of aerosolized composite dust should be prioritized in contemporary dental practice. In essence, protective measures for the clinician and the practices' personnel should also be systematically promoted and additional interventions may be considered in view of the existing evidence.
PubMed: 32486443
DOI: 10.3390/ma13112513 -
BMC Cancer Feb 2015Sinonasal cancer (SNC) has been related to occupational exposures, but the relative risk associated to specific jobs and/or carcinogen exposures other than wood and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Sinonasal cancer (SNC) has been related to occupational exposures, but the relative risk associated to specific jobs and/or carcinogen exposures other than wood and leather dust is generally based on small or inadequate sample sizes and the range of observed estimates is large. This paper is aimed at investigating such relationship through a systematic review of the literature followed by a meta-analysis of studies meeting specific inclusion criteria.
METHODS
Systematic search was made with PubMed, Google Scholar and Scopus engines using related keywords. Occupational exposures include wood and leather dust, formaldehyde, nickel and chromium compounds, textile industry, farming and construction. Meta-analysis of published studies after 1985 with a case-control or cohort design was performed, firstly using the fixed-effect model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the Q statistical test and quantified by the I(2) index. When the heterogeneity hypothesis appeared relevant, the random-effect model was chosen. Sources of heterogeneity were explored using subgroup analyses.
RESULTS
Out of 63 reviewed articles, 28 (11 cohort, 17 case-control) were used in the meta-analysis. Heterogeneity among studies was observed and random-effects models were used. Exposure to wood dust results associated with SNC (RRpooled = 5.91, 95% CI: 4.31-8.11 for the case-control studies and 1.61, 95% CI: 1.10-2.37 for the cohort studies), as well as to leather dust (11.89, 95% CI: 7.69-18.36). The strongest associations are with adenocarcinomas (29.43, 95% CI: 16.46-52.61 and 35.26, 95% CI: 20.62-60.28 respectively). An increased risk of SNC for exposures to formaldehyde (1.68, 95% CI: 1.37-2.06 for the case control and 1.09, 95% CI: 0.66-1.79 for the cohort studies), textile industry (2.03, 95% CI: 1.47-2.8), construction (1.62, 95% CI: 1.11-2.36) and nickel and chromium compounds (18.0, 95% CI: 14.55-22.27) was found. Subset analyses identified several sources of heterogeneity and an exposure-response relationship was suggested for wood dust (p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
By confirming the strength of association between occupational exposure to causal carcinogens and SNC risk, our results may provide indications to the occupational etiology of SNC (not only wood and leather dusts). Future studies could be focused on specific occupational groups to confirm causative agents and to define appropriate preventive measures.
Topics: Agriculture; Dust; Formaldehyde; Humans; Metals, Heavy; Occupational Exposure; Odds Ratio; Paranasal Sinus Neoplasms; Publication Bias; Risk; Textile Industry
PubMed: 25885319
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-015-1042-2 -
PloS One 2015To perform a systematic review to analyze the association between occupational exposure to wood dust and cancer. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To perform a systematic review to analyze the association between occupational exposure to wood dust and cancer.
METHODS
A systematic literature search of entries made in the MEDLINE-PubMed database between 1957 and 2013 was conducted to identify studies that had assessed the relationship between occupational exposure to wood dust and different types of cancer. A meta-analysis of selected case-control and cohort studies was subsequently performed.
RESULTS
A total of 114 studies were identified and 70 were selected for review. Of these, 42 studies focused on the relationship between wood dust and nasal cancer (n = 22), lung cancer (n = 11), and other types of cancer (n = 9). Low-to-moderate quality evidence that wood dust acts as a carcinogen was obtained, and a stronger association between wood dust and nasal adenocarcinoma was observed. A lesser association between wood dust exposure and lung cancer was also observed. Several studies suggested that there is a relationship between wood dust and the onset of other cancers, although there was no evidence to establish an association. A meta-analysis that included four case-controls studies showed that workers exposed to wood dust exhibited higher rates of nasal adenocarcinoma than other workers (odds ratio = 10.28; 95% confidence interval: 5.92 and 17.85; P<0,0001), although a large degree of heterogeneity was found.
CONCLUSIONS
Low-to-moderate quality evidence supports a causal association between cancer and occupational exposure to wood dust, and this association was stronger for nasal adenocarcinoma than for lung cancer. There was no evidence of an association between wood dust exposure and the other cancers examined.
Topics: Air Pollutants, Occupational; Case-Control Studies; Databases, Factual; Dust; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Nose Neoplasms; Occupational Diseases; Occupational Exposure; Wood
PubMed: 26191795
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133024 -
Environmental Health Insights 2021Dust storms and their impacts on health are becoming a major public health issue. The current study examines the health impacts of dust storms around the world to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Dust storms and their impacts on health are becoming a major public health issue. The current study examines the health impacts of dust storms around the world to provide an overview of this issue.
METHOD
In this systematic review, 140 relevant and authoritative English articles on the impacts of dust storms on health (up to September 2019) were identified and extracted from 28 968 articles using valid keywords from various databases (PubMed, WOS, EMBASE, and Scopus) and multiple screening steps. Selected papers were then qualitatively examined and evaluated. Evaluation results were summarized using an Extraction Table.
RESULTS
The results of the study are divided into two parts: short and long-term impacts of dust storms. Short-term impacts include mortality, visitation, emergency medical dispatch, hospitalization, increased symptoms, and decreased pulmonary function. Long-term impacts include pregnancy, cognitive difficulties, and birth problems. Additionally, this study shows that dust storms have devastating impacts on health, affecting cardiovascular and respiratory health in particular.
CONCLUSION
The findings of this study show that dust storms have significant public health impacts. More attention should be paid to these natural hazards to prepare for, respond to, and mitigate these hazardous events to reduce their negative health impacts.Registration: PROSPERO registration number CRD42018093325.
PubMed: 34103932
DOI: 10.1177/11786302211018390 -
BMJ Open Mar 2023To determine the incidence of pneumoconiosis worldwide and its influencing factors. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To determine the incidence of pneumoconiosis worldwide and its influencing factors.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
Cohort studies on occupational pneumoconiosis.
PARTICIPANTS
PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched until November 2021. Studies were selected for meta-analysis if they involved at least one variable investigated as an influencing factor for the incidence of pneumoconiosis and reported either the parameters and 95% CIs of the risk fit to the data, or sufficient information to allow for the calculation of those values.
PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES
The pooled incidence of pneumoconiosis and risk ratio (RR) and 95% CIs of influencing factors.
RESULTS
Our meta-analysis included 19 studies with a total of 335 424 participants, of whom 29 972 developed pneumoconiosis. The pooled incidence of pneumoconiosis was 0.093 (95% CI 0.085 to 0.135). We identified the following influencing factors: (1) male (RR 3.74; 95% CI 1.31 to 10.64; p=0.01), (2) smoking (RR 1.80; 95% CI 1.34 to 2.43; p=0.0001), (3) tunnelling category (RR 4.75; 95% CI 1.96 to 11.53; p<0.0001), (4) helping category (RR 0.07; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.16; p<0.0001), (5) age (the highest incidence occurs between the ages of 50 and 60), (6) duration of dust exposure (RR 4.59, 95% CI 2.41 to 8.74, p<0.01) and (7) cumulative total dust exposure (CTD) (RR 34.14, 95% CI 17.50 to 66.63, p<0.01). A dose-response analysis revealed a significant positive linear dose-response association between the risk of pneumoconiosis and duration of exposure and CTD (P-non-linearity=0.10, P-non-linearity=0.16; respectively). The Pearson correlation analysis revealed that silicosis incidence was highly correlated with cumulative silica exposure (r=0.794, p<0.001).
CONCLUSION
The incidence of pneumoconiosis in occupational workers was 0.093 and seven factors were found to be associated with the incidence, providing some insight into the prevention of pneumoconiosis.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42022323233.
Topics: Male; Humans; Middle Aged; Incidence; Pneumoconiosis; Dust; Odds Ratio; PubMed
PubMed: 36858466
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065114 -
Journal of Occupational and... Jan 2012To review epidemiologic data on occupational exposures and laryngeal cancer. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To review epidemiologic data on occupational exposures and laryngeal cancer.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature search and a series of meta-analyses for agents with at least 10 available studies with homogenous exposure.
RESULTS
We analyzed 99 publications. Significantly increased meta-relative risks (meta-RRs) were obtained considering exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (meta-RR 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10 to 1.52), engine exhaust (meta-RR 1.17; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.30), textile dust (meta-RR 1.41; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.83), and working in the rubber industry (meta-RR 1.39; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.71). Exposures to wood dust, formaldehyde, and cement dust were not significantly associated with laryngeal cancer. In regards of the epidemiologic available data, we could not conclude on the role of solvents.
CONCLUSION
Further studies should overcome past limitations in terms of exposure characterization, adjustment for confounding, and sample size.
Topics: Asbestos; Construction Materials; Dust; Female; Formaldehyde; Humans; Laryngeal Neoplasms; Male; Occupational Diseases; Occupational Exposure; Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons; Rubber; Solvents; Textile Industry; Vehicle Emissions; Wood
PubMed: 22157731
DOI: 10.1097/JOM.0b013e31823c1343 -
Environment International Aug 2023The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres (silica, asbestos and coal): A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury.
BACKGROUND
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large number of individual experts. Evidence from human, animal and mechanistic data suggests that occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres (silica, asbestos and coal dust) causes pneumoconiosis. In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust. These estimates of prevalences and levels will serve as input data for estimating (if feasible) the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years that are attributable to occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust among working-age (≥ 15 years) workers.
DATA SOURCES
We searched electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and CISDOC. We also searched electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consulted additional experts.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA
We included working-age (≥ 15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (< 15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included all study types with objective dust or fibre measurements, published between 1960 and 2018, that directly or indirectly reported an estimate of the prevalence and/or level of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and/or coal dust.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, then data were extracted from qualifying studies. We combined prevalence estimates by industrial sector (ISIC-4 2-digit level with additional merging within Mining, Manufacturing and Construction) using random-effects meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias and all available authors assessed the quality of evidence, using the ROB-SPEO tool and QoE-SPEO approach developed specifically for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.
RESULTS
Eighty-eight studies (82 cross-sectional studies and 6 longitudinal studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising > 2.4 million measurements covering 23 countries from all WHO regions (Africa, Americas, Eastern Mediterranean, South-East Asia, Europe, and Western Pacific). The target population in all 88 included studies was from major ISCO groups 3 (Technicians and Associate Professionals), 6 (Skilled Agricultural, Forestry and Fishery Workers), 7 (Craft and Related Trades Workers), 8 (Plant and Machine Operators and Assemblers), and 9 (Elementary Occupations), hereafter called manual workers. Most studies were performed in Construction, Manufacturing and Mining. For occupational exposure to silica, 65 studies (61 cross-sectional studies and 4 longitudinal studies) were included with > 2.3 million measurements collected in 22 countries in all six WHO regions. For occupational exposure to asbestos, 18 studies (17 cross-sectional studies and 1 longitudinal) were included with > 20,000 measurements collected in eight countries in five WHO regions (no data for Africa). For occupational exposure to coal dust, eight studies (all cross-sectional) were included comprising > 100,000 samples in six countries in five WHO regions (no data for Eastern Mediterranean). Occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust was assessed with personal or stationary active filter sampling; for silica and asbestos, gravimetric assessment was followed by technical analysis. Risk of bias profiles varied between the bodies of evidence looking at asbestos, silica and coal dust, as well as between industrial sectors. However, risk of bias was generally highest for the domain of selection of participants into the studies. The largest bodies of evidence for silica related to the industrial sectors of Construction (ISIC 41-43), Manufacturing (ISIC 20, 23-25, 27, 31-32) and Mining (ISIC 05, 07, 08). For Construction, the pooled prevalence estimate was 0.89 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.93, 17 studies, I 91%, moderate quality of evidence) and the level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. For Manufacturing, the pooled prevalence estimate was 0.85 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.91, 24 studies, I 100%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. The pooled prevalence estimate for Mining was 0.75 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.82, 20 studies, I 100%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was 0.04 mg/m (95% CI 0.03 to 0.05, 17 studies, I 100%, low quality of evidence). Smaller bodies of evidence were identified for Crop and animal production (ISIC 01; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); Professional, scientific and technical activities (ISIC 71, 74; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); and Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level). For asbestos, the pooled prevalence estimate for Construction (ISIC 41, 43, 45,) was 0.77 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.87, six studies, I 99%, low quality of evidence) and the level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. For Manufacturing (ISIC 13, 23-24, 29-30), the pooled prevalence and level estimates were rated as being of very low quality of evidence. Smaller bodies of evidence were identified for Other mining and quarrying (ISIC 08; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); and Water supply, sewerage, waste management and remediation (ISIC 37; very low quality of evidence for levels). For coal dust, the pooled prevalence estimate for Mining of coal and lignite (ISIC 05), was 1.00 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.00, six studies, I 16%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was 0.77 mg/m (95% CI 0.68 to 0.86, three studies, I 100%, low quality of evidence). A small body of evidence was identified for Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35); with very low quality of evidence for prevalence, and the pooled level estimate being 0.60 mg/m (95% CI -6.95 to 8.14, one study, low quality of evidence).
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, we judged the bodies of evidence for occupational exposure to silica to vary by industrial sector between very low and moderate quality of evidence for prevalence, and very low and low for level. For occupational exposure to asbestos, the bodies of evidence varied by industrial sector between very low and low quality of evidence for prevalence and were of very low quality of evidence for level. For occupational exposure to coal dust, the bodies of evidence were of very low or moderate quality of evidence for prevalence, and low for level. None of the included studies were population-based studies (i.e., covered the entire workers' population in the industrial sector), which we judged to present serious concern for indirectness, except for occupational exposure to coal dust within the industrial sector of mining of coal and lignite. Selected estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica by industrial sector are considered suitable as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates, and selected estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to asbestos and coal dust may perhaps also be suitable for estimation purposes. Protocol identifier: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.06.005. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018084131.
Topics: Humans; Adolescent; Occupational Diseases; Dust; Prevalence; Silicon Dioxide; Cross-Sectional Studies; Coal; Steam; Asbestos; Occupational Exposure; World Health Organization; Cost of Illness
PubMed: 37487377
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2023.107980 -
Occupational Medicine (Oxford, England) Apr 2017Between 15 and 20% of prevalent cases of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have been attributed to occupational exposures to vapours, gases, dusts and fumes.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Between 15 and 20% of prevalent cases of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have been attributed to occupational exposures to vapours, gases, dusts and fumes. Dust at construction sites is still a challenge, but no overview exists of COPD among construction workers.
AIMS
To assess the occurrence of COPD among construction workers.
METHODS
We performed a systematic search in PubMed and Embase between 1 January 1990 and 31 August 2016 in order to identify epidemiological studies with a risk estimate for either COPD morbidity/mortality or a spirometry-based definition of airway obstruction among workers in the construction industry. The authors independently assessed studies to determine their eligibility and performed a quality assessment of the included papers.
RESULTS
Twelve studies were included. Nine studies found a statistically significant association between COPD and work in the construction industry, although only among never-smokers in one study and only for the period after 2000 in another study. One study found that the annual decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s was significantly higher among construction workers compared with bus drivers.
CONCLUSIONS
This review suggests that COPD occurs more often among construction workers than among workers who are not exposed to construction dust. It is not possible to draw any conclusions on specific subgroups as most studies analysed construction workers as one united group. In addition, no potential exposure-effect relationship could be identified.
Topics: Airway Obstruction; Construction Industry; Dust; Humans; Occupational Exposure; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive
PubMed: 28204712
DOI: 10.1093/occmed/kqx007 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Feb 2021Whether or not inhalation of airborne desert dust has adverse health effects is unknown. The present study, based on a systematic review and meta-analysis, was carried... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Whether or not inhalation of airborne desert dust has adverse health effects is unknown. The present study, based on a systematic review and meta-analysis, was carried out to assess the influence desert dust on cardiovascular mortality, acute coronary syndrome, and heart failure.
METHODS
A systematic search was made in PubMed and Embase databases for studies published before March 2020. Studies based on daily measurements of desert dust were identified. The meta-analysis evaluated the impact of desert dust on cardiovascular events the same day (lag 0) of the exposure and during several days after the exposure (lags 1 to 5). The combined impact of several days of exposure was also evaluated. The incidence rate ratio (IRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated using the inverse variance random effects method.
RESULTS
Of the 589 identified titles, a total of 15 studies were selected. The impact of desert dust on the incidence of cardiovascular mortality was statistically significant (IRR = 1.018 (95%CI 1.008-1.027); < 0.001) in lag 0 of the dust episode, in the following day (lag 1) (IRR = 1.005 (95%CI 1.001-1.009); = 0.022), and during both days combined (lag 0-1) (IRR = 1.015 (95%CI 1.003-1.028); = 0.014).
CONCLUSIONS
The inhalation to desert dust results in a 2% increase (for every 10 µg/m) in cardiovascular mortality risk.
PubMed: 33673156
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10040727