Cited by 201Air Quality and Health ImpactsAsthma and respiratory diseasesIndoor Air Quality and Microbial Exposure

The impact of prenatal exposure to air pollution on childhood wheezing and asthma: A systematic review

Hehua, Zhang, Qing, Chang, Shanyan, Gao, Qijun, Wu, Yuhong, Zhao·2017·Environmental Research

Abstract

Background and objectives There has been no clear consensus about whether prenatal exposure to air pollution contributes to the development of wheezing and asthma in children. We conducted a systematic review to analyze the association between exposure to different pollutants during pregnancy and the development of childhood wheezing and asthma. Methods We systematically reviewed epidemiological studies published through June 6, 2017 available in the MEDLINE and Web of Science databases. We included studies that examined the association between prenatal exposure to any air pollutants except tobacco smoke and the incidence or prevalence of "wheezing" or "asthma" from birth to 14 years of age. We extracted key characteristics of each included study using a template of predefined data items. We used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklists to assess the validity of each included study. We conducted overall and subgroup meta-analyses for each summary exposure-outcome association. Pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated by using a random effects model. Results Eighteen studies met our eligibility criteria. There was notable variability in exposure assessment methods. The overall random effects risk estimates (95% CI) of different pollutants were 1.04 (0.94-1.15) aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), 1.04 (1.01-1.07) NO 2 , 1.4 (0.97-2.03) PM 2.5 for childhood wheeze and 1.07 (1.01-1.14) NO 2 , 1 (0.97-1.03) PM 2.5 , 1.02 (0.98-1.07) SO 2 , 1.08 (…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.envres.2017.08.038

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hehua, Z., Qing, C., Shanyan, G., Qijun, W., & Yuhong, Z.
Affiliations
China Medical University (CN)
Corresponding author
Yuhong, Zhao
Venue
Environmental Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-11
Volume
159
Pages
519-530
ISSN
0013-9351 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2750701499
Cited by
201
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 2
FWCI
1.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Environmental Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Air Quality and Health Impacts
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Asthma and respiratory diseases
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Indoor Air Quality and Microbial Exposure
Keywords
prenatal air pollution exposure, childhood wheezing, childhood asthma, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, black carbon, carbon monoxide, ozone
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Air Pollutants, Air Pollution, Asthma, Child, Child, Preschool, Environmental Exposure, Female, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Pregnancy, Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects, Respiratory Sounds, Risk Factors, Incidence, Prevalence, Particulate Matter

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review