| Literature DB >> 33036602 |
Fan Yang1, Yue Ma1, Fengfeng Liu2, Xing Zhao1, Chaonan Fan1, Yifan Hu1, Kuiru Hu3, Zhaorui Chang4, Xiong Xiao5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have demonstrated the potential association between rainfall and hand, foot and mouth disease (HFMD), but the results are inconsistent. This study aimed to quantify the relationship between rainfall and HFMD based on a multicity study and explore the potential sources of spatial heterogeneity.Entities:
Keywords: Childhood hand, foot and mouth disease; Exposure-response relationship; Multicity time series analysis; Rainfall; Spatial heterogeneity
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33036602 PMCID: PMC7545871 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-020-09633-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Fig. 1Spatial and temporal distributions of clinical HFMD incidences and cumulative rainfall for the 143 cities in mainland China from 2009 to 2014 (Source of map: ArcGIS Pro software). a Spatial distribution of annual clinical HFMD incidences. b Temporal distribution of daily incidences of clinical HFMD cases. c Spatial distribution of annual cumulative rainfall. d Temporal distribution of daily cumulative rainfall. For the sub-figure b and d, we used the average mean of daily incidence of HFMD and daily cumulative rainfall among the 143 cities for the sake of simplicity. All the map sources were provided by the ArcGIS Pro software
Fig. 2City-specific and overall pooled estimates of exposure-response curves between rainfall and HFMD. Stripes in the bottom represented the density of the rainfall data. ERR represents the excessive risk ratio (ERR, %), which was calculated by the transformation of risk ratio, i.e., (RR-1) × 100%
Fig. 3City-specific and overall pooled estimates of rainfall-HFMD associations for different rainfall levels (Source of map: ArcGIS Pro software). a Spatial distribution of rainfall-HFMD associations in the low rainfall group. b Spatial distribution of rainfall-HFMD associations in the high rainfall group. b Spatial distribution of rainfall-HFMD associations in the extreme rainfall group. d Forest plot of city-specific estimates (measured by ERR) ordered by latitudes for different rainfall levels. Overall pooled estimates were represented by the blue diamond at the bottom, and we truncated the range of ERR from − 50 to 50 to save space. All the map sources were provided by the ArcGIS Pro software
Univariate meta-regression models by incorporating city-specific characteristics to explain heterogeneity
| Meta-predictors | Low rainfall | High rainfall | Extreme rainfall | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept only | – | – | 24.98 | 0.006 | – | – | 40.42 | < 0.001 | – | – | 45.66 | < 0.001 |
| Climatic variables | ||||||||||||
| Temperature | 0.016 (0.004, 0.028) | 0.007 | 21.75 | 0.019 | 0.027 (0.013, 0.042) | < 0.001 | 35.13 | < 0.001 | 0.030 (0.011, 0.050) | 0.002 | 41.80 | < 0.001 |
| Relative humidity | 0.006 (− 0.006, 0.017) | 0.320 | 25.66 | 0.006 | 0.012 (− 0.003, 0.026) | 0.118 | 40.15 | < 0.001 | 0.010 (− 0.011, 0.030) | 0.348 | 45.66 | < 0.001 |
| Sunshine | −0.008 (− 0.020, 0.004) | 0.195 | 24.95 | 0.007 | −0.012 (− 0.028, 0.004) | 0.136 | 40.29 | < 0.001 | − 0.010 (− 0.031, 0.011) | 0.348 | 46.05 | < 0.001 |
| Air pressure | 0.003 (−0.007, 0.013) | 0.546 | 25.24 | 0.006 | 0.005 (−0.009, 0.019) | 0.448 | 40.49 | < 0.001 | 0.006 (−0.014, 0.026) | 0.567 | 45.69 | < 0.001 |
| Demographic variables | ||||||||||||
| Student density | 0.013 (0.002, 0.024) | 0.018 | 22.26 | 0.016 | 0.023 (0.009, 0.036) | 0.001 | 35.33 | < 0.001 | 0.032 (0.016, 0.049) | < 0.001 | 38.86 | < 0.001 |
| Population density | 0.004 (−0.005, 0.014) | 0.362 | 24.91 | 0.007 | 0.010 (−0.003, 0.022) | 0.131 | 39.61 | < 0.001 | 0.013 (−0.004, 0.031) | 0.130 | 44.82 | < 0.001 |
| Population increase | −0.002 (− 0.014, 0.009) | 0.686 | 25.39 | 0.005 | 0.007 (−0.008, 0.023) | 0.339 | 40.27 | < 0.001 | 0.003 (−0.016, 0.023) | 0.723 | 46.00 | < 0.001 |
| Health resources | ||||||||||||
| Hospital beds | 0.009 (−0.003, 0.022) | 0.153 | 23.72 | 0.009 | 0.012 (−0.004, 0.029) | 0.129 | 39.96 | < 0.001 | 0.015 (−0.006, 0.036) | 0.155 | 45.17 | < 0.001 |
| Licensed physicians | 0.006 (−0.005, 0.017) | 0.304 | 25.45 | 0.006 | 0.010 (−0.004, 0.025) | 0.158 | 40.49 | < 0.001 | 0.014 (−0.004, 0.033) | 0.127 | 45.10 | < 0.001 |
| Economic variables | ||||||||||||
| GDP per person | 0.005 (−0.006, 0.015) | 0.351 | 25.07 | 0.006 | 0.008 (−0.006, 0.022) | 0.246 | 40.21 | < 0.001 | 0.024 (0.005, 0.042) | 0.011 | 42.13 | < 0.001 |
| GDP increase | 0.003 (−0.009, 0.015) | 0.600 | 25.63 | 0.005 | 0.000 (−0.015, 0.015) | 0.999 | 40.72 | < 0.001 | −0.001 (− 0.021, 0.020) | 0.951 | 45.89 | < 0.001 |
| Traffic | 0.001 (−0.008, 0.010) | 0.862 | 25.50 | 0.005 | 0.004 (−0.008, 0.017) | 0.507 | 40.59 | < 0.001 | 0.010 (−0.006, 0.026) | 0.207 | 45.05 | < 0.001 |
a β is the coefficient of each meta-predictor, which was obtained using the restricted maximum-likelihood method
b P is the P-value of the Wald test, which was used to test the significance of the coefficient of each meta-predictor
c P is the P-value of the Cochran Q test, which was used to test the significance of the residual heterogeneity
Fig. 4The predicted rainfall-HFMD relationship in ERR for the 10th and 90th percentiles of temperature and student density