Home › Research › Risk factors
Long-term particulate matter 2.5 exposure and dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
S Cheng, Y Jin, Y Dou, Y Zhao, Y Duan, H Pei, P Lyu. Public health, 2022-10-03
Topic: Air pollution and environmental exposures
In total, 20 articles were selected for review; 18 included results on the long-term effects of PM2.5 on dementia, 13 on AD, and eight on VaD. Three group meta-analyses were performed to obtain the HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The pooled HRs were 1.40 (95% CI 1.23, 1.60) for dementia, 1.47 (95% CI 1.22, 1.78) for AD and 2.00 (95% CI 1.30, 3.08) for VaD per 10.0 μg/m3 PM2.5 increase. Long-term exposure to PM2.5 may increase the risk of dementia, including AD and VaD. These results highlight the need for further study on the detrimental impact of PM2.5 and the importance of strategies to mitigate increasing air pollution.
Key findings
- In total, 20 articles were selected for review; 18 included results on the long-term effects of PM2.5 on dementia, 13 on AD, and eight on VaD.
- Three group meta-analyses were performed to obtain the HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
- The pooled HRs were 1.40 (95% CI 1.23, 1.60) for dementia, 1.47 (95% CI 1.22, 1.78) for AD and 2.00 (95% CI 1.30, 3.08) for VaD per 10.0 μg/m3 PM2.5 increase.
- Long-term exposure to PM2.5 may increase the risk of dementia, including AD and VaD.
- These results highlight the need for further study on the detrimental impact of PM2.5 and the importance of strategies to mitigate increasing air pollution.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Study designsystematic review
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 70/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 39 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 70 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Public health) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 36201876) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 39 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 39 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 70 out of 100. |
| Total | 70 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Cheng, S., Jin, Y., Dou, Y., Zhao, Y., Duan, Y., Pei, H., et al. (2022). Long-term particulate matter 2.5 exposure and dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Public health. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2022.08.006
Vancouver
Cheng S, Jin Y, Dou Y, Zhao Y, Duan Y, Pei H, et al. Long-term particulate matter 2.5 exposure and dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Public health. 2022. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2022.08.006. PMID: 36201876.
BibTeX
@article{cheng2022-36201876,
author = {Cheng, S and Jin, Y and Dou, Y and Zhao, Y and Duan, Y and Pei, H and Lyu, P},
title = {{Long-term particulate matter 2.5 exposure and dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis}},
journal = {Public health},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1016/j.puhe.2022.08.006},
pmid = {36201876},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2022.08.006}
}