4.3 Article

Association of air pollution with osteoporotic fracture risk among women over 50 years of age

期刊

JOURNAL OF BONE AND MINERAL METABOLISM
卷 38, 期 6, 页码 839-847

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s00774-020-01117-x

关键词

Air particulate matter (PM); Osteoporotic fracture; Long-term exposure; National Health Insurance Data (NHIS)

资金

  1. BK21plus education programme from the National Research Foundation of Korea

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Air particulate matter (PM) is an environmental exposure associated with oxidation and inflammation. Whether particulate matter is associated with risk of osteoporotic bone fracture is unclear. We investigated the association between exposure to PM and risk of bone fractures. Materials and methods We collected data of 44,602 participants living in three metropolitan cities in Republic of Korea from National Health Insurance Service database. We examined the association of 2 year averaged concentrations of PM and osteoporotic fracture over 4 years. Exposure to 2-year averaged air pollution [PM2.5 (< 2.5 mu m in aerodynamic diameter), PM10 [< 10 mu m in aerodynamic diameter], PM coarse (PM ranging from 2.5 mu m to 10 mu m)] concentrations were estimated from 2008 to 2009 in Air Korea data. The adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for osteoporotic fractures were calculated using the multivariate Cox proportional hazards model. Results After adjusting for age, household income, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, PM 2.5 in one pollutant model increased the risk of osteoporotic fractures, compared to the first quartile group (4th quartile group aHR = 1.13, 95% CI 1.02-1.24). Also, PM 2.5 increased the risk of spine and non-spine fractures compared to the first quartile group (4th quartile group aHR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.00-1.38, aHR = 1.16, 95% CI 1.01-1.33). We found no association between PM10/PM coarse and osteoporotic fractures. Conclusion We found that PM2.5 is a risk factor for osteoporotic bone fractures.

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

4.3
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