4.5 Article

Association between ambient PM2.5 and emergency department visits for psychiatric emergency diseases

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 37, 期 9, 页码 1649-1656

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2018.11.034

关键词

Particular matter; Emergency department; Psychiatry disease

资金

  1. Korea Centers for Disease Control Prevention [2017P140200]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Whether or not short-term exposure to particulate matter <25 mu m in diameter (PM2.5) increases the risk of psychiatric emergency diseases is unclear. Methods: The study was performed in a metropolis from January 2015 to December 2016. The exposure was PM2.5, and the confounders were weather (temperature and humidity) and other pollutants (PM10, SO2, CO, O-3, and NO2). The outcomes were emergency department (ED) visits with psychiatric disease codes (F00-F99 in ICD10 codes). General additive models were used for the statistical analysis to calculate the adjusted relative risks (ARR5) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for the daily number of ED visits with a lag of 1 to 3 days following a 10 mu g/m(3) increase in PM2.5. Results: During the study period, a total of 67,561 ED visits for psychiatric diseases were identified and tested for association with PM2.5. Daily ED visits for all psychiatric diseases were not associated with PM2.5 in the model that was not adjusted for other pollutants. The ARR (95%a) in the model adjusted for SO2 was 1.011 (1.002-1.021) by 10 mu g/m(3) of PM2.5 on Lag 1 for all psychiatric diseases (F00-F99). The ARR (95% CI) in the model adjusted for O-3 was 1.015 (1.003-1.029) by 10 mu g/m(3) of PM2.5 on Lag 1 for F40-F49 (Neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders). Condusion: An increase in PM2.5 showed a significant association with an increase in ED visits for all psychiatric diseases (F00-F99) and for neurotic stress-related and somatoform disorders (F40-F49) on lag day 1. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据