Literature DB >> 25503413

Impact of ambient humidity on child health: a systematic review.

Jinghong Gao1, Yunzong Sun2, Yaogui Lu1, Liping Li1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Changes in relative humidity, along with other meteorological factors, accompany ongoing climate change and play a significant role in weather-related health outcomes, particularly among children. The purpose of this review is to improve our understanding of the relationship between ambient humidity and child health, and to propose directions for future research.
METHODS: A comprehensive search of electronic databases (PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, OvidSP and EBSCO host) and review of reference lists, to supplement relevant studies, were conducted in March 2013. All identified records were selected based on explicit inclusion criteria. We extracted data from the included studies using a pre-designed data extraction form, and then performed a quality assessment. Various heterogeneities precluded a formal quantitative meta-analysis, therefore, evidence was compiled using descriptive summaries.
RESULTS: Out of a total of 3797 identified records, 37 papers were selected for inclusion in this review. Among the 37 studies, 35% were focused on allergic diseases and 32% on respiratory system diseases. Quality assessment revealed 78% of the studies had reporting quality scores above 70%, and all findings demonstrated that ambient humidity generally plays an important role in the incidence and prevalence of climate-sensitive diseases among children.
CONCLUSIONS: With climate change, there is a significant impact of ambient humidity on child health, especially for climate-sensitive infectious diseases, diarrhoeal diseases, respiratory system diseases, and pediatric allergic diseases. However, some inconsistencies in the direction and magnitude of the effects are observed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25503413      PMCID: PMC4264743          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112508

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


Introduction

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal”, according to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and is expected to continue for the next several decades [1]. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols remain constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected [1], [2]. Climate warming will change rainfall patterns, and increase humidity and risk of floods, although a geographical and temporal heterogeneity in the occurrence of these changes is expected [3], [4]. There is strong consensus among expert scientists that with climate change, meteorological factors (e.g. temperature, humidity) are affecting and will increasingly influence human health [5]–[8]. Humidity along with other weather factors can affect the incidence and distribution of infectious diseases by influencing the reproduction, development and population dynamics of vectors [9], [10]. Increasingly warm and humid climates have been observed to be associated with increasing atmospheric levels and density of aeroallergens, indicating that ambient humidity may indirectly affect the incidence and prevalence of allergic diseases [11], [12]. In addition, humidity also plays a great role in the transmission of viral diseases, such as influenza [7], [13]. Compared with adults, children are inherently sensitive to climate change because they are physiologically and metabolically less effective at adapting to ambient humidity and other weather-related exposures. Their relatively immature immune systems increase the risk of serious consequences from a variety of infectious diseases [14]. In 2000, the World Health Organization estimated that climate change contributed to more than 150,000 deaths and 5.5 million lost disability-adjusted life years worldwide and more than 88% of this burden occurs in children under the age of 5 years [15]. According to a 2012 report of the World Health Organization, pneumonia, diarrhoeal disease and malaria, all of which are climate-sensitive diseases, are three of the leading causes of death among children under age five. For example, malaria is a climate-sensitive illness to which children are particularly vulnerable, currently causing 350–500 million illnesses annually, and more than 1 million deaths, with children experiencing disproportionately high levels of both morbidity and mortality (75% of malaria deaths occur in children younger than 5 years of age) [16]. However, although pediatric health care professionals have written about the effects of climate change on child health, relatively limited research has been conducted specifically on the impact of ambient humidity on child health. To our knowledge, almost all of the studies investigating the association between climate change and child health mainly focus on temperature or rainfall, while ambient humidity is usually considered as a dispensable and alternative variable. Additionally, to date, no systematic review has specifically focused on the relationship between ambient humidity and child health. In order to fill this knowledge gap, the primary objective of this review is to improve our understanding of how humidity, both directly and indirectly, can influence child health and to promote additional research in this field by presenting and summarizing the findings of all relevant studies related to the impact of ambient humidity on child health.

Methods

Data sources and search strategy

Relevant peer-reviewed journal databases (PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, ScienceDirect (Elsevier), OvidSP and EBSCO host) were searched using the following MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms and keywords: “climate change”, “humidity”, “wet”, “dew point”, “child”, “infant”, “adolescent” and “pediatric”. The search terms and keywords were adapted to suit the requirements of each database to facilitate a comprehensive search. After selection of the full text, the references of the identified articles were reviewed and the necessary hand search was performed to recover potentially relevant studies not included in the major databases. The search sought to identify journal articles published in English up to March 2013. In accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child proclaimed by the United Nations, we defined children as the group of people 0–18 years of age [17].

Inclusion criteria

The following eligibility criteria were used in this study: Types of studies: the present review only included peer-reviewed original articles. Thus, reviews, books, meta-analyses and conference abstracts were excluded. Target population: only the studies involving children between 0–18 years of age were considered. Research factors: only studies in which humidity was one of the exposure indicators of interest were considered. Outcome measures: the reported results of the included studies should have included at least one quantitative effect estimate associated with humidity. An outcome measure was reported as either: percent change, regression coefficient, correlation coefficient, relative risk or odds ratio. We also required P-values or 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to have been reported.

Study selection and data extraction

Three of the authors (Gao, Sun and Lu) independently assessed the potential relevance of all publications, identified during the database search, based on the information provided in the titles and abstracts. When reviewers disagreed, a discussion was held to obtain consensus. After screening by titles and abstracts, the full texts of the remaining articles were then obtained and critically reviewed by the first author. We extracted data, from the final selected references, using a pre-designed data extraction form. The quantitative estimates of each study that met the eligibility criteria were carefully retrieved and the following key characteristics were captured: study region, target population, study design, humidity exposure variable, health outcomes and adjustment of confounders. All data extraction was performed by the first author (Gao) and cross-checked by another researcher (Sun). Any errors identified were corrected through discussion among all authors.

Quality assessment

To date, the use of quality assessment tools to appraise observational studies included in systematic reviews is less well established than in reviews of randomized controlled trials, and there is no existing generally accepted quality assessment tool for observational and cross-sectional studies [18], [19]. Therefore, the STROBE method (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology), a guideline for reporting observational studies, was selected and adapted for our purpose to describe the reporting quality of the final identified articles [20], [21]. As in a previous systematic review, an adapted version of the STROBE checklist ( ) was used to create a binomial scoring system (e.g. criterion met  = 1, criterion not met  = 0). Final score percentages were based on the number of reporting quality criteria met divided by the number of criteria that were relevant during the quality assessment [22]. During this process, studies that controlled for potential confounding factors and included an outcome measure, such as relative risk, odds ratio or regression coefficient, were given higher quality ratings. Meanwhile, studies were given lower quality ratings if they did not include adjustment of confounders or only included outcome measures such as an estimated slope coefficient from simple linear regression or a correlation coefficient for which only the P-value was given. As no accepted gold standard exists for judging the quality of observational studies, in the present review we did not exclude any identified studies based on the quality assessment, which used an adapted version of the STROBE checklist.
Table 1

Adapted STROBE Statement—checklist of items that should be included in reports of observational studies (including additions/adaptations for accommodating meteorological data).

Item NoRecommendation
Title and abstract 1(a) Indicate the study's design with a commonly used term in the title or the abstract
(b) Provide in the abstract an informative and balanced summary of what was done
and what was found
Introduction
Background2Explain the scientific background and rationale for the investigation being reported
Objectives3State specific objectives, including any pre-specified hypotheses
Methods
Study design4Present key elements of study design early in the paper
Setting5Describe the setting, locations, and relevant dates, including periods of recruitment,
exposure, follow-up, and data collection
Participants6(a) Cohort study—Give the eligibility criteria, and the sources and methods of
selection of participants. Describe methods of follow-up
Case-control study—Give the eligibility criteria, and the sources and methods of case
ascertainment and control selection. Give the rationale for the choice of cases and
controls
Cross-sectional study—Give the eligibility criteria, and the sources and methods of
selection of participants
(b) Cohort study—For matched studies, give matching criteria and number of
exposed and unexposed
Case-control study—For matched studies, give matching criteria and the number of
controls per case
Variables7Clearly define all meteorological variables, outcomes, exposures, predictors, potential
confounders, and effect modifiers. Give diagnostic criteria, if applicable
Data sources8* For each variable of interest, especially meteorological and outcome variables, give
sources of data and details of methods of assessment (measurement). Describe
comparability of assessment methods if there is more than one group
Bias9Describe any efforts to address potential sources of bias
Study size10Explain how the study size was arrived at
Quantitative variables11Explain how quantitative meteorological and outcome variables were handled in
the analyses, including how meteorological variables were handled before using for
analysis, and what kind of statistical software(s), as well as its/their version number
were used to complete related statistical analysis. If applicable, describe which
groupings were chosen and why
Statistical methods12(a) Describe all statistical methods, including those used to control for confounders
(b) Describe any methods used to examine meteorological and outcome subgroups
and interactions
(c) Explain how missing data of meteorological variable and outcome were addressed
(d) Cohort study—If applicable, explain how loss to follow-up was addressed
Case-control study—If applicable, explain how matching of cases and controls was addressed
Cross-sectional study—If applicable, describe analytical methods taking account
the sampling strategy
(e) Describe any sensitivity analyses
Results
Participants13* (a) Report numbers of individuals at each stage of the study—e.g. numbers potentially
eligible, examined for eligibility, confirmed eligible, included in the study, completing
follow-up, and analysed
(b) Give reasons for non-participation at each stage
(c) Consider use of a flow diagram
Descriptive data14* (a) Give characteristics of study participants (e.g. demographic, clinical, social) and
information on exposures and potential confounders. Summarize meteorological
characteristics of the study area (if applicable)
(b) Indicate the number of participants with missing data for each variable of interest,
especially meteorological and outcome variables
(c) Cohort study—Summarize follow-up time (e.g. average and total amount)
Outcome data15* Cohort study—Report numbers of outcome events or summary measures over time
Case-control study—Report numbers in each exposure category, or summary
measures of exposure
Cross-sectional study—Report numbers of outcome events or summary measures
Main results16(a) Give unadjusted estimates and, if applicable, confounder-adjusted estimates and
their precision (e.g. 95% confidence interval). Make clear which confounders were
adjusted for and why they were included
(b) Report category boundaries when meteorological or continuous variables were
categorized
(c) If relevant, consider translating estimates of relative risk into absolute risk for a
meaningful time period
Other analyses17Report other analyses done—e.g. correlation analysis, analyses of subgroups and
interactions, and sensitivity analyses
Discussion
Key results18Summarise key results with reference to study objectives
Limitations19Discuss limitations of the study, taking into account sources of potential bias or
imprecision. Discuss both direction and magnitude of any potential bias
Interpretation20Give a cautious overall interpretation of results considering objectives, limitations,
multiplicity of analyses, results from similar studies, and other relevant evidence
Generalizability21Discuss the generalizability (external validity) of the study results
Other information
Funding22Give the source of funding and the role of the funders for the present study and, if
applicable, for the original study on which the present article is based

*Give information separately for cases and controls in case-control studies and, if applicable, for exposed and unexposed groups in cohort and cross-sectional studies.

*Give information separately for cases and controls in case-control studies and, if applicable, for exposed and unexposed groups in cohort and cross-sectional studies.

Data synthesis

Due to heterogeneity in the target populations, outcome measures and design of studies, we did not conduct an overall summary estimate (e.g. meta-analysis). Instead, we summarized the evidence in a descriptive synthesis.

Results

A total of 3787 records were identified from the electronic database searches, and 10 additional studies were retrieved by reviewing references. After screening by titles and abstracts, 76 articles were selected for examination of the full text. Finally, 37 papers remained for inclusion in this systematic review ( ). Then quality assessment and data synthesis were performed to obtain the key results presented and summarized in . Among the 37 studies, 24% (9/37) involved infectious diseases, 32% (12/37) were on respiratory system diseases, and 35% (13/37) were focused on asthma and other allergic diseases. Nearly 73% (27/37) of the studies were conducted in high-income countries or regions. According to the adapted STROBE checklist, the reported quality scores ranged from 53.33% to 88.89%, with the majority of records (29/37) having scores above 70%, indicating a relatively high reporting quality of the articles. Studies using time-series analysis, Poisson regression or negative binomial regression were usually given higher scores.
Figure 1

Flow chart of the screening and selection process of the study articles.

Table 2

Characteristics of included studies about ambient humidity and children's health (n = 37).

Author(year)a Study regionTarget populationStudy design andHumidityTarget outcomeStatistical indicatorAdjustment forReporting
and period(number, age)analysis methodexposureand effect estimateconfoundingquality(%
variablefactorsscore)
YÜKSEL et al.b (1996) [47] Izmir, Turkey21 childrenDescriptive study,DailyTotal dailyr = 0.578No adjustments53.33
1993–1994aged 5–14Correlation andrelativecomplaints of the P<0.01were conducted
yearsvariance analysishumidityasthma patient
Guo et al.b (1999) [48] Taiwan331,686Descriptive study,DailyAsthmaBoys: R2 = 0.57, β = 0.37Adjusted for age,64.29
1995–1996children agedLogistic regressionwinterprevalence rate(95% CI: 0.0078–0.73,history of atopic
0–15 yearsanalysismonth P<0.05)eczema and parental
humidityeducation
Checkley et al.b (2000) [31] Lima, Peru,57 331 childrenTime-series study,Daily meanDaily hospitalRR = 0.97No adjustments71.43
1993–1998under 10 yearsPoisson GAMrelativeadmissions for(95% CI: 0.97–0.98)were conducted
humiditydiarrheal diseases
per 1% increase in
relative humidity
at 37 lag days
Weiland et al.b (2004) [53] WesternChildren agedMultilevel linearMonthly meanPrevalence rates1) 13–14 years old children :Adjusted for gross60.00
Europe6–7 and 13–14regressionlowest relativeof symptoms ofβ = 0.13 (95% CI:0.04–0.23)national product per
1992–1996yearsanalyseshumidityasthma2) 6–7 years old children :capita (GNP)
β = 0.09 (95% CI:0.02–0.15)
Hashimoto et al.b (2004) [55] Tokyo, Japan5559 childrenMultiple logisticDaily meanNumber of emergentβ = 0.075,Adjusting for74.07
1998–2002aged 2–15 yearsregression analysesrelativevisits for childhood(95% CI: 0.06–009,calendar month and
humidityasthma P<0.001)day of the week
Viegas et al.b (2004) [33] Buenos Aires,18561 childrenSpearman's rankMonthly meanRespiratory viruses1) RSV: r = 0.6, P<0.0001;No adjustments62.96
Argentinaaged under 5correlation testrelativefrequencies among2) IA: r = 0.47, P = 0.0068were conducted
1998–2002yearshumiditythe patients
Lapeña et al.b (2005) [34] Leon, Spain.167 childrenCase-control study,WeeklyAdmission with lower1) r = −0.15, P = 0.045;No adjustments72.41
1995–2000aged under 2Correlation analysisrelativerespiratory tract2) OR = 0.96 CI: 0.92–0.99)were conducted
yearsMultivariate logistichumidityinfection due to RSV P<0.01(absolute humidity
regression modelwas not included in the model)
Priftis et al.b (2006) [44] Athens,18950 childrenMultiple regressionMonthly meanMonthly hospitalβ = 1.106, P<0.05,No adjustments75.86
Greeceaged 0–4 yearsanalysisrelativeadmission rates forr2 = 0.592were conducted
1978–2000humiditychildhood asthma
Al-Toum et al.b (2006) [35] Amman,200 ChildrenDescriptive study,Monthly meanPrevalence of RSVr = 0.66, P<0.05No adjustments62.96
Jordanaged under 2Correlation analysisrelativewere conducted
2002–2004yearshumidity
Xirasagar et al.b (2006) [52] Taiwan27275 ChildrenCross-sectional study,Monthly meanMonthly asthma1) Children aged 2–5 years:Seasonality trend70.97
1998–2001aged 0–14 yearsARIMA models,relativeadmission ratesr = −0.290, P<0.01was evaluated
Spearman rankhumidity2) Children aged 6–14 years:
correlations analysisr = −0.415, P<0.001
Yé et al.b (2007) [28] Kossi,676 childrenDescriptive study,Daily meanIncidence of clinicalβ = −23.2151Site of the study,75.86
Burkina Fasoaged 6–59Logistic regressionrelativemalaria(95% CI: −36.7151 tosex; age; presence
2003–2004monthshumidity−9.7152)of animal were
considered
Kurt et al.b (2007) [45] Turkey25843 childrenCross-sectionalYearly meanAllergic diseases1) Asthma: OR = 1.009Adjusted for age,78.57
2004aged 6–15 yearsstudy, andrelative(95% CI: 1.002–1.015)rural/urban sex,
Multivariate logistichumidity2) Wheezing: OR = 1.01residence and
regression analysis>70%(95% CI: 1.003–1.02)sibling number
3) Allergic rhinitis: OR = 
1.006 (95% CI: 1.001–1.01)
D'Souza et al.b (2008) [32] 3 AustralianChildren agedTime–series studyWeekly meanWeekly admissions1) Canberra: IRR = 0.98Adjusted for trend,76.00
cities0–5 yearsand log-linearrelativefor rotavirus diarrheal(95% CI: 0.97–0.99)season and previous
1993–2003regression modelhumidityper 1% increase in2) Brisbane: IRR = 0.982 weeks' admission
relative humidity(95% CI: 0.97–0.99)
of the previous week3) Melbourne: IRR = 0.99
(95% CI: 0.99–1.00)
Omer et al.b (2008) [36] Lombok2878 childrenNegative binomialDaily meanDaily number ofIRR = 1.06 , P<0.001No adjustments85.71
island,aged 0–2 yearsregression andrelativeRSV cases 8 days(95% CI: 1.03–1.10)were conducted
Indonesiamultivariatehumiditylater
2000–2002regression
Noyola. D. E. and Mandeville, P. Bb (2008) [38] San Luis1393 childrenRegressionWeekly meanWeekly numberβ = 0.035, P = 0.0027Temperature, hours61.29
Potosí,aged 0–18analysisrelativeof RSV cases(95% CI: 0.012–0.058)light and precipitation
Mexico.yearshumidity atwere considered
2002–200608:00 hoursin the model
Nastos et al.b (2008) [49] Athens,Children agedPoisson GLMMonthly meanMonthly number ofβ = 0.0273, P<0.0001No adjustments76.92
Greece0–4 yearsrelativechildhood asthma( 95% CI: 0.0264–0.0282)were conducted
1978–2000humidityadmissions(CAA)
Lee et al.b (2008) [54] Taiwan317,926Cross-sectionalMonthly meanPrevalence of1)Boys: RR = 1.15, P<0.05Adjusted for age,78.13
1995–1996children agedstudy and Logisticlowest relativeflexural eczema( 95% CI: 1.04–1.27)parental education
mostlyregressionhumidity2)Girls: RR = 1.22, P<0.05level, asthma and
between 12–14(95% CI: 1.08–1.38)active smoking habit
du Prel et al.b (2009) [40] Mainz,3044 childrenMultiple timeMeanHospitalizationHuman rhinovirus :Correlations among77.78
Germanyaged 0–16 yearsseries analysisrelativefrequency due toβ = 0.218, P = 0.002meteorological
2001–2006humidityacute respiratory tractparameters were
infections (ARI)controlled for
Murdoch and Jennings (2009) [41] Christchurch,Children agedEcological study,MonthlyIncidence rates ofIRR = 1.87, P = 0.04No adjustments80.77
New Zealand<5 yearsNegative binomialoccurrence ofinvasive pneumococcal(95% CI: 1.02–3.45)were conducted
1995–2006regression analysisdaily mean 9amdisease(IPD) for the
humidity>75%1-month lag
Mireku et al.b (2009) [51] Detroit,25,401 childrenTime–series study,IntradayThe counts ofβ = 0.10, P = 0.04Adjusted for73.08
Americaaged 1–18 yearsGeneralizedhumidityasthma admissionsseasonality, air
2004–2005additive modelchange1-day laterpollution, and
(GAM)aeroallergen exposure
Charland K. M. et al.b (2009) [57] 37 paediatric63,334 childrenBayesianDaily meanThe peak weekβ = −0.085,Population type,74.19
hospitals inaged 0–18 yearshierarchicaldew pointof influenza visits(95% CI: −0.20 to 0.031)latitude, longitude,
USAmodelssolar radiation and
2000–2005temperature
were considered
García-Marcos et al. (2009) [50] Coastal areas,Children agedPoisson regressionAnnuallyAdjusted prevalence1) 6–7 years old: PR = 1.28No adjustments81.48
Spain6–7 years andmodelmeanratios (PR) of current( 95% CI: 1.12–1.46)were conducted
1994–200213–14 yearsrelativewheeze per 10%2) 13–14 years old: PR = 1.25
humidityincrease in humidity( 95% CI: 1.13–1.39)
Connelly et al.b (2010) [59] Kansas,25 childrenMultilevel modelDaily thriceProbability ofβ = 0.02, P = 0.01;Controlling for74.07
Americaaged 8–17 yearsanalysesrelativeheadache occurrenceOR = 1.02changes in the child's
2007–2008humiditynegative affect
Chou et al.b (2010) [30] Taiwan290331 childrenTime-seriesMonthly meanMonthly morbidityβ = −0.033, P = 0.004Adjusted for84.62
1996–2007aged 0–14 yearsstudy, Poissonrelativeof diarrhea (no lag)seasonality, long-term
regressionhumiditytrends, lag effects
and autocorrelation
Tchidjou et al.b (2010) [42] Yaoundé ,1306 childrenNegativeDailyFrequency ofRR = 1.22Adjusted for80.00
Cameroonaged 0–18 yearsbinomialrelativehospitalization for acute(95% CI: 1.07–1.40)seasonality and
2006–2007regressionshumidityrespiratory infectionsannual trend
Nascimento-Carvalho et al.b (2010) [23] Salvador,184 childrenCorrelationMonthly meanInfections caused by1) Overall viral infections:No adjustments72.00
Brazilaged 0–5 yearsanalysisrelativedifferent aetiologicalr = 0.6, P = 0.006were conducted
2003–2005humidityagents2) Chlamydia trachomatis:
r = −0.5, P = 0.02
Konstantinou et al.b (2011) [46] Norwich, UK;56624 childrenPoissonMonthly meanMonthly incidence1) Norwich: IRR = 0.972Adjusted for69.23
Heraklion,aged 0–14 yearsregression modelrelativerate of acute(95% CI: 0.959–0.985)seasonal effect
Greecehumidityurticarial2) Heraklion: IRR = 1.035
2005–2007(95% CI: 1.015–1.056)
Zacarias, Majlenderb (2011) [29] Maputo,60943 infantsBayesianMonthly meanMalaria incidenceRR = 0.049The spatial and73.08
Mozambiqueaged 0–4 yearshierarchicalrelative(95%CI: 0.03048-temporal correlations
2007–2008modelshumidity0.06531)were considered
Loh et al.b (2011) [43] Singapore42155 childrenTime–seriesWeeklyAdmissions due to1) URTI: β = −0.228,Select model with84.00
2003–2008almost aged 0–5study, andrelativeupper and lower P = 0.0200;the lowest Akaike's
yearsARIMA modelhumidityrespiratory tract2) LRTI: β = −0.760,Information Criterion
infection ( URTI P<0.0001
and LRTI)
Onozuka, Hashizumeb (2011) [25] Fukuoka,67000 childrenTime–series study,Weekly meanWeekly number ofPercentage increase:Adjusting for88.46
Japanaged<15 yearsNegative binomialrelativemumps cases per 1%1.4% (95% CI: 0.5–2.4)temporal, seasonal and
2000–2008regressionhumidityincrease in humidityinter-annual variations,
for 0–2 weeks lagand temperature
Arnedo Pena et al.b (2011) [56] Spain24301 childrenLogistic regression,AnnuallyPrevalence rateβ = −0.00334,Prevalence rate of85.19
1971–2005aged 13–14Multiple regressionmean relativeof asthma P<0.0001asthma and collinearity
yearsmodelshumiditywere adjusted
Onozuka, Hashizumeb (2011) [26] Fukuoka,61736 childrenTime-series study,Weekly meanPercentage increase inPercent change: 4.7%Adjusting for seasonal,85.71
Japanaged 0–4 yearsNegative binomialrelativenumber of hand, foot,(95% CI: 2.3–7.1)long-term trends, and
2000–2010regressionhumidityand mouth disease perinter-annual variations
1% increase in humidity
with 0–3 weeks lag
Onozuka, Hashizumeb (2011) [27] Fukuoka,423142 childrenTime-series study,Weekly meanPercentage increase inPercent change: 3.9%Adjusting for seasonal,88.89
Japanaged<15 yearsNegative binomialrelativenumber of infectious(95% CI: 2.8–5.0)inter-annual, and
2000–2008regressionhumiditygastroenteritis per 1%temperature variations
decrease in humidity
for lags of 0–6 weeks
Wang et al.b (2012) [58] 15 states1459 childrenMultivariableDaily meanHospital admissionOR = 0.9 , P = 0.04Adjusting for pressure76.67
in USA<2 years of agelogistic regressiondew point(95% CI: 0.8–0.996 )altitude, wind speed,
2004–2006and temperature
Khor et al.b (2012) [39] Kuala10269 childrenMultipleMonthly meanMonthly number ofβ = −1.070,No adjustments74.07
Lumpur,aged 0–5 yearsregressionrelativerespiratory syncytial P<0.001were conducted
Malaysiaanalysishumidityvirus (RSV) cases
1982–2008
Chang et al.b (2012) [24] Taiwan1914 childrenCase-crossoverDaily meanIncidence ofIRR = 1.08, P<0.001Adjusted for seasonal,68.97
1998–2008aged<15 yearsstudy, andrelativeEnterovirus 71(95% CI: 1.05–1.10)temporal trends and
Logistic regressionhumidityinfectionsannual variations
Turkish Neonatalb (2012) [37] Turkey3464 childrenCorrelation analysisMonthly meanHospitalization withr = 0.627, P<0.001Trends and seasonality73.08
2008–2010aged<2 yearsand Spearmanrelativerespiratory syncytialwere described
correlation testhumidityvirus infection

Abbreviations: GAM, generalized additive model; GLM, generalized linear models; ARIMA models, autoregressive integrated moving average modeling; r, correlation coefficient; β, regression coefficient; R2/r2, coefficient of determination; RR, relative risk; OR, odds ratio; IRR, incident rate ratio; CI, 95% confidence interval; RSV, human respiratory syncytial virus; IA, influenza virus A.

These included articles are ordered by the date of publication and the first word of their titles.

In these studies there is more than one meteorological factor that was investigated and analyzed, respectively or simultaneously.

[N]: N is the specific citation number of the related study included in the present review.

Abbreviations: GAM, generalized additive model; GLM, generalized linear models; ARIMA models, autoregressive integrated moving average modeling; r, correlation coefficient; β, regression coefficient; R2/r2, coefficient of determination; RR, relative risk; OR, odds ratio; IRR, incident rate ratio; CI, 95% confidence interval; RSV, human respiratory syncytial virus; IA, influenza virus A. These included articles are ordered by the date of publication and the first word of their titles. In these studies there is more than one meteorological factor that was investigated and analyzed, respectively or simultaneously. [N]: N is the specific citation number of the related study included in the present review.

Gastrointestinal and other infectious diseases

Studies found that ambient humidity plays an important role in the occurrence and prevalence of pediatric infectious diseases. A Brazilian study found that among the children hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia, overall viral and Chlamydia trachomatis infections correlated with monthly mean relative humidity [23]. In Taiwan, a study identified a positive association between daily mean relative humidity and the incidence of enterovirus 71 (EV71) infections among children under 15 years of age (IRR = 1.08, 95% CI: 1.05–1.10), with seasonal and annual trends being controlled [24]. In Japan, one study indicated that for each 1% increase in the weekly mean relative humidity, the number of mumps cases increased by 1.4% (95% CI: 0.5–2.4%) among children [25]. In another Japanese study, the weekly number of hand, foot, and mouth disease cases increased by 4.7% (95% CI: 2.3–7.1%), in children between 0–4 years of age, for each 1% increase in relative humidity [26]. An additional study investigated the relationship between weather variability and infectious gastroenteritis (IG) in children. However, the results indicated that for every 1% decrease in weekly mean relative humidity, the number of IG cases increased by 3.9% (95% CI: 2.8–5.0%) [27]. Existing studies suggest that ambient humidity has a significant impact on malaria risk and diarrhoeal diseases among children. A prior study found that the clinical malaria risk increased non-linearly with the increase in mean relative humidity of the previous month [28]. A Mozambican study reported that humidity was a significant predictor of malaria incidence, with every additional 1% increase in relative humidity level leading to a 5% increase in risk of malaria incidence [29]. In Taiwan, a study examining the relationship between climate variations and diarrhea-associated morbidity found that there was a significant negative correlation between relative humidity and the morbidity of diarrhea in 0- to 14-year-old children (β = −0.033, P = 0.004) [30]. Another study performed in Peru indicated that an increase of 1% in mean relative humidity was associated with a 3% decrease in the number of diarrhoeal admissions [31]. The results of an Australian study showed that higher humidity in the previous week was associated with a decrease in rotavirus diarrhoeal admissions among children hospitalized for rotavirus diarrhoea after controlling for season [32].

Respiratory system diseases

Many pediatric respiratory system diseases are sensitive to relative humidity. An Argentinean study reported that respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza virus A had a positive correlation with mean monthly relative humidity among children hospitalized due to acute lower respiratory viral infections [33]. Another study found that low absolute humidity presented a protective effect on the admission of infants who had lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) due to RSV [34]. In a study conducted in Jordan, a significant positive correlation between the prevalence of RSV infection and relative humidity was identified among hospitalized children [35]. A similar study in Indonesia indicated that for children hospitalized with clinical pneumonia, a 1% rise in mean relative humidity was associated with a 6% increase in RSV cases [36]. An additional study of children hospitalized with LRTI in Turkey reported that the number of RSV infection cases positively correlated with relative humidity, similar to results reported by Noyola and Mandeville for Mexico [37], [38]. Another retrospective study was performed in Malaysia to investigate the viral etiology of children who were admitted with viral respiratory tract infections. However, the results showed that monthly RSV cases were inversely correlated with relative humidity [39]. In Germany, a study found that human rhinovirus positively correlated with relative humidity among children who were hospitalized with acute respiratory tract infections (ARIs) [40]. Another study in New Zealand showed that the number of days per month with a mean 9 AM humidity >75% positively correlated with the incidence of invasive pneumococcal disease in children [41]. The results of a study in Cameroon showed that high relative humidity was directly associated with an increase in the frequency of hospitalization from ARIs [42]. However, in one Singapore study, of 42155 children presenting in the hospital with one of five common paediatric diseases, both upper respiratory tract infections and LRTI were negatively correlated with relative humidity [43].

Dermatopathy and pediatric allergic diseases

Childhood asthma and other pediatric allergic diseases are important adverse consequences of humidity. In Greece, the results of a study showed that relative humidity was an implicated meteorological variable for younger asthmatic children [44]. A study performed in fourteen cities in Turkey found that asthma, wheezing and allergic rhinitis were associated with higher mean yearly outdoor humidity among school children [45]. Another study reported an interesting finding that relative humidity was significantly associated with the incidence of acute urticaria in childhood. However, the humidity accounted for different effects in the two study cities. Specifically, decreasing incidence was found for humidity increases in Norwich, Britain, while the inverse was observed in Heraklion, Greece [46]. In one Turkish study of 21 bronchial asthma children, results indicated that increasing relative humidity leads to an increase in total daily complaints of asthma patients [47]. A study reported that winter humidity was positively associated with the prevalence of asthma in Taiwanese middle-school students [48]. A positive relationship between mean monthly relative humidity and childhood asthma admissions (CAAs) was reported in Greece. For this study, a 10% increase in humidity was related to a 31% increase in the probability of having a CAA [49]. In addition, an analysis, carried out exclusively within the coastal region of Spain, showed that relative humidity constituted a significant risk factor for wheezing in both the 6–7 and 13–14 age groups [50]. A retrospective study performed in America indicated that a 10% intraday increase in humidity one or two days before admission was associated with approximately 1 additional emergency department visit for asthma [51]. On the contrary, a study in Taiwan indicated that relative humidity was negatively correlated with asthma admission rates of pre-school and school-age children [52]. In Western Europe, a positive relationship between the lowest monthly mean relative humidity and prevalence rates of asthma symptoms was found among children [53]. Another similar study conducted among school children in Taiwan indicated that the lowest monthly mean relative humidity is positively related to eczema [54]. An additional study conducted in Japan reported that the number of emergency visits for childhood asthma per night increased significantly when climate conditions showed a rapid decrease from higher humidity [55]. A study in Spain also showed that relative humidity was negatively associated with asthma in the 13–14 age group [56].

Others

Dew point, another measure of ambient humidity, is the temperature at which water vapor in the air becomes saturated and water droplets begin to form. To date, relative humidity and dew point are two widely used indicators for the amount of moisture in air. Accordingly, some other studies also investigated the association between ambient humidity and child health by choosing dew point as the indicator. A negative association between the peak week of child-related influenza visits and dew point was reported by Charland and colleagues, although the relationship was not significant [57]. In another study, Wang et al. found that a higher dew point was associated with a lower risk of hospital admission among children [58]. In addition, ambient humidity may also play a role in other diseases among children. For instance, the results of an American study showed a positive association between relative humidity and the likelihood of headache among children [59].

Discussion

The purpose of the present systematic review was to summarize key findings related to the effects of ambient humidity on child health, and identify the relationship between humidity exposure and common pediatric diseases. The systematic review of the 37 included publications performed herein demonstrates that ambient humidity generally plays a significant role in the incidence and prevalence of childhood climate-sensitive diseases, especially for gastrointestinal, respiratory system, and allergic diseases. Considering the expected continuation of climate change, the adverse influence of ambient humidity on children may become increasingly serious. However, some inconsistencies or even contradicting directions and magnitudes of the effects were also observed. Almost 73% of the final included studies were conducted in high-income countries or regions, indicating that more attention should be paid to the developing countries of Asia and Africa. Because of low-income, a large population and poor infrastructure, people in these countries are usually more vulnerable to climate-sensitive diseases. The results of the quality assessment indicate that the combined application of advanced statistical methods, such as time-series analysis combined with Poisson regression, usually tends to provide more reliable results (higher quality ratings), since adjustments could be made for potential confounders, including long-term trends, seasonality and air pollution.

Impact of ambient humidity on child health

Because of their physiologic, metabolic and cognitive immaturity, and greater sensitivity to certain exposures, children are often the most vulnerable to adverse health effects from environmental hazards [14], [16]. In addition, more expected future years of life will expose them to newly developing or worsening environmental hazards [7]. In general, child vulnerability to environmental hazards (e.g. humidity) can be potentially explained by their unique modality of physiological, metabolic, behavioral, and self-care ability [60], [61]. Therefore, with global climate change, children are likely to suffer disproportionately from weather factors [60], [62]. It is thought that if children are adversely affected by meteorological factors (e.g. humidity), their long-term health may also be adversely impacted [63]. Findings from the present review suggest that the occurrence and prevalence of childhood climate-sensitive infectious diseases are significantly associated with ambient humidity. It is predicted that climate change will lead to more frequent and abundant rainfall, increasing temperature and higher concentrations of water vapor, which will cause favorable conditions of ambient humidity and concomitantly favor increases in the occurrence and development of infectious diseases [3], [4], [10]. For example, ambient humidity together with temperature can influence the population dynamics of vectors, persistence and survival of pathogens, seasonal activity of microorganisms, and duration of the life cycle of parasites, and therefore impact the occurrence and prevalence of various infectious diseases [10], [63], [64]. Ambient humidity can affect tick abundance and seasonal tick activity. It has been reported that the host seeking activity of I. ricinus depends on the relative humidity, and below a relative humidity threshold of 86%, the tick dehydrates and cannot continuously seek a host [65], [66]. In Sweden, a study found that the number of days with levels of relative humidity above 86% correlates positively with the incidence rate of erythema migrans [67]. For gastrointestinal infectious agents such as rotaviruses and EV71, changes in ambient humidity have been reported to facilitate viral resistance, thereby enhancing the virulence and increasing the efficiency of transmission through contaminated air, fomites and environmental surfaces [68], [69]. A laboratory-based study suggested that the stability of enteroviruses in external environmental conditions is dependent on temperature and humidity, and another study reported that raising the relative humidity to 80% results in a rapid loss of infectivity, suggesting that humidity might be an important environmental determinant of rotavirus infectivity [68], [70]. This perhaps can explain why the relative humidity has a linear inverse relationship with the number of cases of rotavirus diarrhea previously reported in a study of 3115 rotavirus diarrhoea cases in 0- to 2-year-old Bangladesh children [71]. However, a study performed in China suggested that the number of hand, foot, and mouth disease infections is positively correlated with ambient humidity [72]. Malaria is a climate-sensitive vector-borne illness. Meteorological factors (e.g. temperature, humidity) have considerable impact on Anopheles vector abundance and the extrinsic cycles that the parasites perform inside mosquitoes. Thus, meteorological factors may affect malaria incidence and constitute driving forces for malaria epidemics [73]. A study in China suggested that moderate temperature and relative humidity increase the longevity of the adult mosquito so that it can transmit infection for a longer period of time [74]. In India, a study found a higher positive correlation between monthly malaria parasite incidence and ambient humidity [75]. Many studies demonstrate the effects of relative humidity on pediatric respiratory tract infections. In tropical and subtropical areas (e.g. Singapore, Malaysia), it has been suggested that high humidity and temperature prolong the activity and stability of microorganisms in large-particle aerosols, and permit year-round transmission of the microorganisms [5], [76]. A study reported that relative humidity is positively associated with RSV activity, with more RSV infection occurring when humidity increases [77]. However, a converse conclusion was found in an Argentinean study, which concluded that humidity provides a protective effect against respiratory infections [78]. The possible effects of ambient humidity on childhood asthma and other allergic diseases are of particular concern due to this population's greater susceptibility. Meteorological factors (humidity, temperature) can influence both biological and chemical components of air and might induce negative effects on respiratory allergic diseases. With climate change, ambient humidity is likely to impact asthma, hay fever and other allergic diseases via its influence on the concentration and distribution of pollens, mould spores, house dust mites, and other aeroallergens [79], [80]. Moreover, changes in the outdoor humidity, resulting from climate change, is important not only because of its own effects, but also because of its influence on indoor humidity, which results in infestation of homes with house dust mites, growth of fungal spores and home dampness, and is associated with the incidence of allergic diseases [12], [79], [81]. A study conducted among school children in Spain indicates that humidity significantly influences the occurrence of atopic eczema [82]. Youssefagha and colleagues indicate that upper-air relative humidity ≥50% and higher dew point (>−1.9) are significantly associated with exacerbation of asthma among children [83]. Another study performed in Japan also suggests that asthmatic children frequently visit the emergency department during early mornings with high absolute humidity [84]. However, in this review, some studies also report a negative association between ambient humidity and pediatric allergic diseases [52], [56]. The reasons for the inconsistencies among different studies are possibly due to regional differences and local characteristics, such as geographical environment, type of climate, vegetation condition, air quality, socio-economic status, and the acclimatization and adaptation of the local populations [63], [79], [80]. Additionally, study design, subgroups of children and method of analysis may also contribute to the controversies. As mentioned above, different studies may present inconsistencies in the direction and magnitude of the effects of ambient humidity, with other studies even concluding that the occurrence of relevant climate-sensitive diseases appears to be unrelated to humidity [36], [39], [85], [86]. This discrepancy can be explained by the following possible reasons: firstly, relative humidity can affect microorganisms in different ways. Some microorganisms tend to be more invasive in increased humidity, while others develop better in lower humidity [10]. Similar effects of ambient humidity on the concentration and distribution of aeroallergens have also been reported [87]. Secondly, there is a geographical, meteorological and temporal heterogeneity in the different studies. The occurrence of different effects suggests that geographical sites, regional variability and acclimatization of the local population may play a role in determining the exposure–response relationship. Thirdly, among various studies, whether or not one takes into account potential confounding factors and what kind of confounder is adjusted for existing differences, can make a difference in the conclusions. Moreover, even mutual confounding factors among different studies are likely to vary between regions, which implies that regional differences and local characteristics may modify the effects of weather factors [25], [27], [71]. Lastly, the date of the study conducted, the limited study duration and participants, and the different age groups of the study population may also play a role in the discrepancy. Future research taking these factors into account will be appreciated.

Strengths and limitations

This systematic review begins to address the current knowledge gap in the relationship between ambient humidity and child health. This is the first attempt to synthesize, using a systematic approach, the existing evidence of humidity-related health outcomes, across different countries, among children between 0–18 years of age. According to , almost all of the final included journal articles (34/37) were published after the year 2000, and were of relatively high reporting quality (the majority of records having a reporting quality above 70%). The findings in suggest that ambient humidity has been playing a significant role in weather-related health outcomes. Unfortunately, children are usually the most susceptible subpopulation. The present review is crucial because this literature provides details of the current state of studies that examine the effects of humidity on child health and proposes directions for the future research. Despite targeting the reporting quality of observational studies, many items of the STROBE checklist were no doubt selected due to evidence of association with susceptibility to bias. Thus experts have suggested that the STROBE statement provides a suitable starting point for development of a quality assessment tool [20], [88]. Just as the MOOSE (Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guidelines are being used to assess quality, although they were actually developed as reporting guidelines, in this review, we tried to describe the reporting quality of the final identified articles by using an adapted version of the STROBE checklist [18], [89]. After the quality assessments, studies that applied credible and convincing statistical methods and outcome measures often obtained higher quality scores at the same time ( ), indicating that the adapted STROBE checklist can describe the reporting quality of the final identified articles well. This novel quality assessment tool is innovative and potentially ground-breaking in terms of its contribution to relevant environmental and meteorological literature reviews [22]. However, regarding the results of this systematic review, some limitations should be acknowledged. First, this review is limited by its emphasis on papers published in English in peer-reviewed journal databases, so we may have missed potentially useful studies. Second, despite the highly sensitive and comprehensive nature of the search strategy employed, it is unlikely that all existing studies have been identified, and publication bias cannot be entirely excluded. Third, the adapted version of the STROBE checklist was initially implemented to describe the reporting quality of weather-related studies, so the validity and reliability of the checklist for our purposes have not been completely tested and formally evaluated. However, in this review, the tool was used only to describe the reporting quality, and the quality scores were not included as part of the relevance criteria. Fourth, it has been reported that temperature and relative humidity are not independent of one another, so the effects of relative humidity may be confounded by temperature. However, in our review, the majority of studies adjusted for potential confounding factors (e.g. temperature) when analyzing the impact of humidity on child health, and studies that conducted no adjustments were given lower quality ratings. Additionally, relative humidity is a popular indicator that has been widely used in current research and meteorological monitoring. Therefore, it is helpful and of practical significance to choose relative humidity rather than absolute humidity or water vapor pressure as the exposure variable. Finally, the data extraction and quality assessment were not performed independently by more than one reviewer, which may have led to subjective errors and introduced bias. However, in the present review, due to the explicit inclusion criteria, specially pre-designed data extraction form, definite exposure variable and health outcome, and the adapted quality assessment tool, the authors were able to ensure the integrity of the review, and to be unbiased during the conduction of assessment.

Conclusion

In summary, this study demonstrates that due to various inherent and unique characteristics, children are often susceptible to ambient humidity. We find that with climate change, there is a significant impact of humidity on child health, especially for climate-sensitive infectious diseases, diarrhoeal diseases, respiratory system diseases, and pediatric allergic diseases. However, the humidity-related effects on child health are various and complex. Ambient humidity continues to impact children unequally and in different ways, with impacts ranging from direct and indirect, and negative and positive. In this review we find that the influence of humidity on child health involves heterogeneous and even converse effects among different study regions, research designs, health outcomes, adjustments of potential confounding factors (e.g. air pollution, seasonality, interaction with other meteorological factors), and subgroups of children, which suggests that further studies focusing on the association between ambient humidity and child health are needed to deal with the aforementioned problems. Current increasing interest in the relationship between climate change and child health may provide an ideal opportunity to employ various epidemiological and statistical methods to further explore the impact of ambient humidity on child health. Such research and epidemiologic evidence can inform the local health officials and policy-makers to make and implement necessary preparations (mitigation and adaptation), ultimately contributing to better health outcomes for a humidity-impacted population. PRISMA checklist. (DOCX) Click here for additional data file.
  84 in total

Review 1.  Climate warming and disease risks for terrestrial and marine biota.

Authors:  C Drew Harvell; Charles E Mitchell; Jessica R Ward; Sonia Altizer; Andrew P Dobson; Richard S Ostfeld; Michael D Samuel
Journal:  Science       Date:  2002-06-21       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Airborne water droplets in mist or fog may affect nocturnal attacks in asthmatic children.

Authors:  Kosuke Kashiwabara; Kotaro Itonaga; Toshihiro Moroi
Journal:  J Asthma       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 2.515

3.  Sunny hours and variations in the prevalence of asthma in schoolchildren according to the International Study of Asthma and Allergies (ISAAC) Phase III in Spain.

Authors:  Alberto Arnedo-Pena; Luis García-Marcos; Jorge Fuertes Fernández-Espinar; Alberto Bercedo-Sanz; Ines Aguinaga-Ontoso; Carlos González-Díaz; Ignacio Carvajal-Urueña; Rosa Busquet-Monge; Maria Morales Suárez-Varela; Nagore García de Andoin; Juan Batlles-Garrido; Alfredo Blanco-Quirós; Angel López-Silvarrey Varela; Gloria García-Hernández
Journal:  Int J Biometeorol       Date:  2010-08-28       Impact factor: 3.787

4.  The effect of airborne particles and weather conditions on pediatric respiratory infections in Cordoba, Argentine.

Authors:  Ana C Amarillo; Hebe A Carreras
Journal:  Environ Pollut       Date:  2012-07-24       Impact factor: 8.071

Review 5.  Climate change, aeroallergens, and pediatric allergic disease.

Authors:  Perry E Sheffield; Kate R Weinberger; Patrick L Kinney
Journal:  Mt Sinai J Med       Date:  2011 Jan-Feb

6.  Climatic factors associated with hospitalizations for rotavirus diarrhoea in children under 5 years of age.

Authors:  R M D'Souza; G Hall; N G Becker
Journal:  Epidemiol Infect       Date:  2007-03-12       Impact factor: 2.451

7.  Modeling the impact of climate variability on diarrhea-associated diseases in Taiwan (1996-2007).

Authors:  Wei-Chun Chou; Jiunn-Lin Wu; Yu-Chun Wang; Hsin Huang; Fung-Chang Sung; Chun-Yu Chuang
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2010-10-13       Impact factor: 7.963

8.  Traffic-related air pollution, climate, and prevalence of eczema in Taiwanese school children.

Authors:  Yung-Ling Lee; Huey-Jen Su; Hamm-Ming Sheu; Hsin-Su Yu; Yueliang L Guo
Journal:  J Invest Dermatol       Date:  2008-05-01       Impact factor: 8.551

9.  Climate and prevalence of atopic eczema in 6- to 7-year-old school children in Spain. ISAAC phase III.

Authors:  María Morales Suárez-Varela; Luís García-Marcos Alvarez; Michael D Kogan; Agustín Llopis González; Antonio Martínez Gimeno; Inés Aguinaga Ontoso; Carlos González Díaz; Alberto Arnedo Pena; Begoña Domínguez Aurrecoechea; Rosa María Busquets Monge; Alfredo Blanco Quiros; José Batlles Garrido; Iñaqui Miner Canflanca; Angel López-Silvarrey Varela
Journal:  Int J Biometeorol       Date:  2008-09-09       Impact factor: 3.787

Review 10.  Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Jan P Vandenbroucke; Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche; Cynthia D Mulrow; Stuart J Pocock; Charles Poole; James J Schlesselman; Matthias Egger
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2007-10-16       Impact factor: 11.069

View more
  9 in total

1.  The Role of Humidity in the Management of Premature Neonates in a Rural Incubator.

Authors:  Hemmanoor Samartharam; Nagashree Vasudeva; Sai Samyuktha Ila
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2021-04-10

Review 2.  Climate Change and Childhood Respiratory Health: A Call to Action for Paediatricians.

Authors:  Maria Elisa Di Cicco; Giuliana Ferrante; Doriana Amato; Antonino Capizzi; Carlo De Pieri; Valentina Agnese Ferraro; Maria Furno; Valentina Tranchino; Stefania La Grutta
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-07-24       Impact factor: 3.390

Review 3.  A Systematic Review and Appraisal of Epidemiological Studies on Household Fuel Use and Its Health Effects Using Demographic and Health Surveys.

Authors:  Daniel B Odo; Ian A Yang; Luke D Knibbs
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-02-03       Impact factor: 3.390

4.  Web-Based Data to Quantify Meteorological and Geographical Effects on Heat Stroke: Case Study in China.

Authors:  Qinmei Han; Zhao Liu; Junwen Jia; Bruce T Anderson; Wei Xu; Peijun Shi
Journal:  Geohealth       Date:  2022-08-01

5.  The lag-effects of meteorological factors and air pollutants on child respiratory diseases in Fuzhou, China.

Authors:  Zhengqin Wu; Chong Miao; Haibo Li; Shaowei Wu; Haiyan Gao; Wenjuan Liu; Wei Li; Libo Xu; Guanghua Liu; Yibing Zhu
Journal:  J Glob Health       Date:  2022-08-17       Impact factor: 7.664

6.  Epidemiology of Bronchiolitis in Hospitalized Infants at Tawam Hospital, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates.

Authors:  Amar Al Shibli; Muhammad B Nouredin; Abdulla Al Amri; Durdana Iram; Hassib Narchi
Journal:  Open Respir Med J       Date:  2021-05-24

Review 7.  Effects of relative humidity on animal health and welfare.

Authors:  Yan Xiong; Qing-Shi Meng; Jie Gao; Xiang-Fang Tang; Hong-Fu Zhang
Journal:  J Integr Agric       Date:  2017-08-12       Impact factor: 2.848

8.  Association of Short-Term Exposure to Meteorological Factors and Risk of Hand, Foot, and Mouth Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Zhihui Liu; Yongna Meng; Hao Xiang; Yuanan Lu; Suyang Liu
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-10-30       Impact factor: 3.390

9.  High ambient temperature and child emergency and hospital visits in New York City.

Authors:  Li Niu; Maria Teresa Herrera; Blean Girma; Bian Liu; Leah Schinasi; Jane E Clougherty; Perry E Sheffield
Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol       Date:  2021-06-23       Impact factor: 3.103

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.