Cited by 122Energy and Environment ImpactsTuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyIndoor Air Quality and Microbial Exposure

Systematic review and meta‐analysis of the associations between indoor air pollution and tuberculosis

Open access
Sumpter, Colin, Chandramohan, Daniel·2013·Tropical Medicine & International Health

Abstract

Objective: Half the world's population uses biomass fuel for their daily needs but the resultant emissions and indoor air pollution (IAP) are harmful to health. So far, evidence for a link between IAP and tuberculosis (TB) was insufficient. We report an updated systematic review due to recent increase in the evidence and growing interest in testing interventions. Methods: Systematic search of P ub M ed (including M edline), CAB abstracts (through O vid SP) and W eb of K nowledge using the following search terms: ‘IAP or biomass or cooking smoke’ and ‘TB’. 452 abstracts were reviewed, and only 12 articles were deemed to be reporting the effects of IAP on TB and were taken forward to full review, and one study was added through hand search of references. Data on measures of effect of IAP on TB were extracted, and meta‐analysis was carried out to estimate pooled measures of effect. Results: Thirteen studies have reported investigating association between IAP and TB since 1996. TB cases are more likely to be exposed to IAP than healthy controls (pooled OR 1.30; 95% CI, 1.04–1.62; P = 0.02). Conclusions: There is increasingly strong evidence for an association between IAP and TB. Further studies are needed to understand the burden of TB attributable to IAP. Interventions such as clean cook stoves to reduce the adverse effects of IAP merit rigorous evaluation, particularly in A frica and I ndia where the prevalence of IAP and TB is high.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/tmi.12013

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Sumpter, C., & Chandramohan, D.
Affiliations
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
Corresponding author
Sumpter, Colin
Venue
Tropical Medicine & International Health
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-11-06
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
101-108
ISSN
  • 1360-2276 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-3156
OpenAlex
W2015784925
Cited by
122
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 2
FWCI
0.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Tropical Medicine & International Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Energy and Environment Impacts
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Tuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Indoor Air Quality and Microbial Exposure
Keywords
indoor air pollution, tuberculosis, biomass fuel, tuberculosis risk factors, attributable burden of disease
MeSH terms
Air Pollutants, Cooking, Humans, Tuberculosis, Confidence Intervals, Odds Ratio, Air Pollution, Indoor, Biomass

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