BACKGROUND: Several methods have been used to account for measurement error inherent in using ambient concentration of particulate matter < 2.5 microm/m(3) (PM(2.5)) as a proxy for personal exposure. Such methods commonly rely on the estimated correlation between ambient and personal PM(2.5) concentrations (r). However, studies of r have not been systematically and quantitatively assessed for publication bias or heterogeneity. METHODS: We searched 7 electronic reference databases for studies of the within-participant correlation between ambient and personal PM(2.5). RESULTS: We identified 567 candidate studies, 18 (3%) of which met inclusion criteria and were abstracted. The studies were published between 1999 and 2008, representing 619 nonsmoking participants aged 6-93 years in 17 European and North American cities. Correlation coefficients (median 0.54; range 0.09-0.83) were based on a median of 8 ambient-personal PM(2.5) pairs per participant (range 5-20) collected over 27-547 days. Overall, there was little evidence for publication bias (funnel plot symmetry tests: Begg's log-rank test, P 0.9; Egger's regression asymmetry test, P 0.2). However, strong evidence for heterogeneity was noted (Cochran's Q test for heterogeneity, P = 0.001). European locales, eastern longitudes in North America, higher ambient PM(2.5) concentrations, higher relative humidity, and lower between-participant variation in r were associated with increased r. CONCLUSIONS: Characteristics of participants, studies, and the environments in which they are conducted may affect the accuracy of ambient PM2.5 as a proxy for personal exposure.
BACKGROUND: Several methods have been used to account for measurement error inherent in using ambient concentration of particulate matter < 2.5 microm/m(3) (PM(2.5)) as a proxy for personal exposure. Such methods commonly rely on the estimated correlation between ambient and personal PM(2.5) concentrations (r). However, studies of r have not been systematically and quantitatively assessed for publication bias or heterogeneity. METHODS: We searched 7 electronic reference databases for studies of the within-participant correlation between ambient and personal PM(2.5). RESULTS: We identified 567 candidate studies, 18 (3%) of which met inclusion criteria and were abstracted. The studies were published between 1999 and 2008, representing 619 nonsmoking participants aged 6-93 years in 17 European and North American cities. Correlation coefficients (median 0.54; range 0.09-0.83) were based on a median of 8 ambient-personal PM(2.5) pairs per participant (range 5-20) collected over 27-547 days. Overall, there was little evidence for publication bias (funnel plot symmetry tests: Begg's log-rank test, P 0.9; Egger's regression asymmetry test, P 0.2). However, strong evidence for heterogeneity was noted (Cochran's Q test for heterogeneity, P = 0.001). European locales, eastern longitudes in North America, higher ambient PM(2.5) concentrations, higher relative humidity, and lower between-participant variation in r were associated with increased r. CONCLUSIONS: Characteristics of participants, studies, and the environments in which they are conducted may affect the accuracy of ambient PM2.5 as a proxy for personal exposure.
Authors: C E Rodes; P A Lawless; G F Evans; L S Sheldon; R W Williams; A F Vette; J P Creason; D Walsh Journal: J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol Date: 2001 Mar-Apr
Authors: A D Oxman; G H Guyatt; J Singer; C H Goldsmith; B G Hutchison; R A Milner; D L Streiner Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 1991 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: G F Evans; R V Highsmith; L S Sheldon; J C Suggs; R W Williams; R B Zweidinger; J P Creason; D Walsh; C E Rodes; P A Lawless Journal: J Air Waste Manag Assoc Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 2.235
Authors: Melissa M Maestas; Robert D Brook; Rosemary A Ziemba; Fengyao Li; Ryan C Crane; Zachary M Klaver; Robert L Bard; Catherine A Spino; Sara D Adar; Masako Morishita Journal: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 5.563
Authors: Audrey de Nazelle; Edmund Seto; David Donaire-Gonzalez; Michelle Mendez; Jaume Matamala; Mark J Nieuwenhuijsen; Michael Jerrett Journal: Environ Pollut Date: 2013-02-13 Impact factor: 8.071
Authors: Christy L Avery; Katherine T Mills; Ronald Williams; Kathleen A McGraw; Charles Poole; Richard L Smith; Eric A Whitsel Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2010-01-14 Impact factor: 9.031