Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 339

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 108 of the 108 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Case-Crossover Analysis of Air Pollution Health Effects: A Systematic Review of Methodology and Application

Open access
Carracedo-Martínez, Eduardo, Taracido, Margarita, Tobias, Aurelio, Saez, Marc, Figueiras, Adolfo·2010·Environmental Health Perspectives

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Case-crossover is one of the most used designs for analyzing the health-related effects of air pollution. Nevertheless, no one has reviewed its application and methodology in this context. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review of case-crossover (CCO) designs used to study the relationship between air pollution and morbidity and mortality, from the standpoint of methodology and application. DATA SOURCES AND EXTRACTION: A search was made of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases.Reports were classified as methodologic or applied. From the latter, the following information was extracted: author, study location, year, type of population (general or patients), dependent variable(s), independent variable(s), type of CCO design, and whether effect modification was analyzed for variables at the individual level. DATA SYNTHESIS: The review covered 105 reports that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of these, 24 addressed methodological aspects, and the remainder involved the design's application. In the methodological reports, the designs that yielded the best results in simulation were symmetric bidirectional CCO and time-stratified CCO. Furthermore, we observed an increase across time in the use of certain CCO designs, mainly symmetric bidirectional and time-stratified CCO. The dependent variables most frequently analyzed were those relating to hospital morbidity; the pollutants most often studied were those linked to particulate matter. Among the CCO-application reports, 13.6% studied effect modification for variables at the individual level. CONCLUSIONS: The use of CCO designs has undergone considerable growth; the most widely used designs were those that yielded better results in simulation studies: symmetric bidirectional and time-stratified CCO. However, the advantages of CCO as a method of analysis of variables at the individual level are put to little use.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1289/ehp.0901485

Cites

108 of 108 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 108 references

Cited by

See all 339

Metadata

Authors
Carracedo-Martínez, E., Taracido, M., Tobias, A., Saez, M., & Figueiras, A.
Venue
Environmental Health Perspectives
Published
2010-08
Volume
118
Issue
8
Pages
1173-1182
ISSN
  • 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-9924
OpenAlex
W2142939243
Cited by
339
References
108
FWCI
1.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Case-Crossover Analysis of Air Pollution Health Effects: A Systematic Review of Methodology and Application. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1289/ehp.0901485
The paper
Carracedo-Martínez, E., Taracido, M., Tobias, A., Saez, M., & Figueiras, A. (2010). Case-Crossover Analysis of Air Pollution Health Effects: A Systematic Review of Methodology and Application. Environmental Health Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.0901485

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.