Long-term exposure to increased levels of PM 2.5 and NO 2 were most strongly associated with increased risk of dementia. Papers showed great variance in their study characteristics, air pollution modelling methodology and assessment of cognitive domain. Pollutants reported included particulate matter ≤2.5 µm (PM 2.5) particulate matter ≤10 µm (PM 10) nitrogen dioxide (NO 2) nitrogen oxide species (NO x) and ozone (O 3). Only 18/26 publications included both male and female subjects. The total sample size included over 2.4 million (53.8% female) subjects with ages ranging from 45 to 100 years (estimated mean age 70 years). Results: From 1996 records, 26 satisfied the inclusion criteria. Individual studies were identified from similar review articles.Įligibility criteria: Studies investigating the long-term (>3 years) associations between airborne pollutants and cognitive function in older adults (>50 years old). Objective: To systematically review and meta-analyse the evidence for the association between long-term air pollution exposure and cognitive function in adults.ĭata sources: Web of Science, PubMed, Embase searched up to February 2021 with no language restrictions. However, the role of specific pollutants on different cognitive domains in adults are inconclusive as the pathways to cognitive decline remain poorly understood. Credible links are now emerging between exposure to specific pollutants and cognitive decline. 4Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdomīackground: Now more than ever before, air pollution and cognitive decline are global concerns.3School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. 2Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.1College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.Meta-analysis resulting in a pooled estimate of intervention effectiveness (not done in all systematic reviews).Jack McLachlan 1, Simon R. Seldom reported and if reported not usually systematic Methodology of the primary articles/studies is assessed rigorous critical appraisal meta-analysis resulting in a pooled estimate of intervention effectiveness (not done in all systematic reviews). Not usually specified, potentially biased seldom reported Involve explicit description of what types of studies are to be included to limit selection bias on behalf of the reviewer explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria for primary studies tables reporting salient features of each article with expert synthesis, discussion and agreement by two or more reviewers. Not usually specified, potentially biased.ĭeciding which studies to include and exclude Searches for pivotal papers known to the subject expert. Comprehensive high-recall search for published and unpublished material, fully reported, explicit search strategy uses several evidence sources/databases.ĭo not usually attempt to locate all relevant literature. Strive to locate all relevant published and unpublished studies, fully reported, to impact of publication and other biases. May also start with a clear question to be answered, but they more often involve general discussion of a subject with no stated hypothesis i.e., a topical approach. Specific: the populations, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) of interest are specified. Start with clear question to be answered or hypothesis to be tested.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |