School of Mathematics and Statistics, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.
Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Environ Health Perspect. 2020 Sep;128(9):95001. doi: 10.1289/EHP7411. Epub 2020 Sep 9.
Studies have reported that ambient air pollution is associated with an increased risk of developing or dying from coronavirus-2 (COVID-19). Methodological approaches to investigate the health impacts of air pollution on epidemics should differ from those used for chronic diseases, but the methods used in these studies have not been appraised critically.
Our study aimed to identify and critique the methodological approaches of studies of air pollution on infections and mortality due to COVID-19 and to identify and critique the methodological approaches of similar studies concerning severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS).
Published and unpublished papers of associations between air pollution and developing or dying from COVID-19 or SARS that were reported as of 10 May 2020 were identified through electronic databases, internet searches, and other sources.
All six COVID-19 studies and two of three SARS studies reported positive associations. Two were time series studies that estimated associations between daily changes in air pollution, one was a cohort that assessed associations between air pollution and the secondary spread of SARS, and six were ecological studies that used area-wide exposures and outcomes. Common shortcomings included possible cross-level bias in ecological studies, underreporting of health outcomes, using grouped data, the lack of highly spatially resolved air pollution measures, inadequate control for confounding and evaluation of effect modification, not accounting for regional variations in the timing of outbreaks' temporal changes in at-risk populations, and not accounting for nonindependence of outcomes.
Studies of air pollution and novel coronaviruses have relied mainly on ecological measures of exposures and outcomes and are susceptible to important sources of bias. Although longitudinal studies with individual-level data may be imperfect, they are needed to adequately address this topic. The complexities involved in these types of studies underscore the need for careful design and for peer review. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP7411.
研究表明,环境空气污染与感染冠状病毒-2(COVID-19)的风险增加或死于 COVID-19 的风险增加有关。调查空气污染对传染病的健康影响的方法学方法应与用于慢性病的方法不同,但这些研究中使用的方法尚未得到批判性评估。
我们的研究旨在确定和批判评估 COVID-19 感染和死亡率与空气污染之间关系的研究方法,并确定和批判评估有关严重急性呼吸系统综合症(SARS)的类似研究的方法。
通过电子数据库、互联网搜索和其他来源,确定了截至 2020 年 5 月 10 日发表和未发表的关于空气污染与 COVID-19 或 SARS 发病或死亡之间关系的论文。
所有六项 COVID-19 研究和三项 SARS 研究中的两项均报告存在阳性关联。两项为时间序列研究,估计了空气污染每日变化与疾病之间的关联,一项为评估空气污染与 SARS 二次传播之间关联的队列研究,六项为使用区域范围暴露和结果的生态研究。常见的缺点包括生态研究中可能存在跨层次偏差、健康结果报告不足、使用分组数据、缺乏高空间分辨率的空气污染测量值、对混杂因素的控制不足和效果修饰的评估、未考虑到爆发时间的区域变化和高危人群的时间变化、以及未考虑到结果的非独立性。
新型冠状病毒的空气污染研究主要依赖于暴露和结果的生态测量方法,并且容易受到重要的偏倚源的影响。尽管具有个体水平数据的纵向研究可能并不完美,但需要这些研究来充分解决这个问题。这些类型的研究所涉及的复杂性突显了仔细设计和同行评审的必要性。https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP7411。