Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Human Skin Diseases Due to Particulate Matter
Open accessAbstract
This study investigated the effects of particulate matter (PM) on human skin diseases by conducting a systematic review of existing literature and performing a meta-analysis. It considered articles reporting an original effect of PM on human skin. From among 918 articles identified, 13 articles were included for further consideration after manual screening of the articles resulted in the exclusion of articles that did not contain data, review articles, editorials, and also articles in languages other than English. Random-effects models and forest plots were used to estimate the effect of PM on the skin by Meta-Disc analysis. According to people’s reports of exposure and negative skin effects (atopic dermatitis (AD), eczema, and skin aging, etc.) due to air pollution, the summary relative risk (odds ratio) of PM10 was determined to be 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89–1.11) whereas PM2.5 was determined to be 1.04 (95% CI 0.96–1.12). Simultaneously, there was a different extent of impact between PM10 and PM2.5 on atopic dermatitis (AD) for those of young age: the odds ratio of PM10 and PM2.5 were 0.96 (95% CI 0.83–1.11; I2 = 62.7%) and 1.05 (95% CI 0.95–1.16; I2 = 46%), respectively. Furthermore, the results suggest an estimated increase of disease incidence per 10 μg/m3 PM of 1.01% (0.08–2.05) due to PM10 and 1.60% (0.45–2.82) due to PM2.5. Following the results, PM10 and PM2.5 are associated with increased risks of human skin diseases, especially AD, whose risk is higher in infants and school children. With its smaller size and a high concentration of metals, PM2.5 is more closely related to AD in younger people, compared to PM10.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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?
The link between atopic dermatitis (AD) and pollution has always been very controversially discussed, because the scientific evidence remains scarce in contrast to asthma.
“The link between atopic dermatitis (AD) and pollution has always been very controversially discussed, because the scientific evidence remains scarce in contrast to asthma.10, 76, 77, 78”
From The impact of airborne pollution on skin (2019) · cites this paper as [78]
The Discussion says more research is needed to establish the possible association between PM10 and AD, supporting uncertainty about that specific link. It also describes the evidence for a PM–AD association as compelling; it does not say the link has always been controversial or that evidence for AD is scarcer than for asthma. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLiving in a polluted environment favours atopy and exacerbates specific inflammatory skin disease symptoms in both children and adults.
“In their meta‐analysis, Ngoc et al.78 found an association between pollutants and eczema thus reinforcing the hypothesis that living in a polluted environment favours atopy and exacerbates specific inflammatory skin disease symptoms in both children and adults.”
From The impact of airborne pollution on skin (2019) · cites this paper as [78]
The Discussion (page unavailable) links particulate matter with eczema and atopic dermatitis, particularly in children and infants, supporting the proposed association. The Introduction distinguishes eczema and atopic dermatitis in children from the adult outcomes it names, so the paper does not establish exacerbation of inflammatory skin symptoms in both children and adults. The claim is also broader than the paper’s focus on particulate matter. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPM2.5 is significantly associated with the development and exacerbation of skin diseases such as AD.
“Recent meta-analysis (21) and epidemiologic studies (22, 23) showed PM2.5 is significantly associated with the development and the exacerbation of skin diseases such as AD.”
From Particulate matter causes skin barrier dysfunction. (2021) · cites this paper as [21]
The Discussion reports a statistically significant impact of PM2.5 on skin diseases, and the Conclusions say high concentrations can promote their development and exacerbation. However, the Results give an AD-specific odds ratio of 1.05 (95% CI 0.95–1.16) in young people; because that interval includes 1, the paper does not establish a statistically significant association specifically for AD. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn their meta-analysis, Ngoc et al. found an association between pollutants and eczema.
“In their meta‐analysis, Ngoc et al.78 found an association between pollutants and eczema thus reinforcing the hypothesis that living in a polluted environment favours atopy and exacerbates specific inflammatory skin disease symptoms in both children and adults.”
From The impact of airborne pollution on skin (2019) · cites this paper as [78]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 39 · Cited by 159
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [1]SOGA State of Global Air. A Special Report on Global Exposure to Air Pollution and Its Disease Burden Health Effects Institute Cambridge, MA, USA 2017 1 15
- Authors
- Ngoc, L., Park, D., Lee, Y., & Lee, Y.-C.
- Affiliations
- Gachon University (KR)
- Korea Railroad Research Institute (KR)
- Corresponding author
- Lee, Young-Chul
- Venue
- International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2017-11-25
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1458
- ISSN
- 1660-4601 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5750877
- OpenAlex
- W2771034038
- Cited by
- 159
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 1.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Ministry of Environment (2015000550006)
- Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (17RTRP-B082486-04)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Air Quality and Health Impacts
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Dermatology and Skin Diseases
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Indoor Air Quality and Microbial Exposure
- Keywords
- particulate matter, air pollution, skin diseases, atopic dermatitis, skin aging, PM10, PM2.5, children, infants
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Air Pollutants, Air Pollution, Child, Child, Preschool, Dermatitis, Atopic, Environmental Exposure, Female, Humans, Infant, Male, Middle Aged, Incidence, Prevalence, Particulate Matter, Young Adult
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
