Is Smoking Associated with the Risk of Acute Mountain Sickness? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q4 BIOPHYSICS
High altitude medicine & biology Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-07 DOI:10.1089/ham.2022.0037
Yuelin Yu, Peng Gao, Lianke Xie, Kun Wang, Dandan Dou, Quanquan Gong
{"title":"Is Smoking Associated with the Risk of Acute Mountain Sickness? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Yuelin Yu, Peng Gao, Lianke Xie, Kun Wang, Dandan Dou, Quanquan Gong","doi":"10.1089/ham.2022.0037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> Controversy remains in the association between smoking and the risk of acute mountain sickness (AMS). Therefore, a systematic review of the existing literature may help clarify this association. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from database inception up to October 19, 2021. Both unadjusted and adjusted relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to compare the risk of AMS in the smoking and nonsmoking groups. Meta-regression was conducted to explore the factors causing heterogeneity of the studies, and subsequent stratified analysis was performed to present the pooled RR in different subgroups. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. <b><i>Results:</i></b> A total of 28 eligible articles (31 studies) were included. The pooled unadjusted and adjusted RRs were 0.88 (95% CI: 0.78-1.01) and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.77-0.99), respectively, using random-effect models. Publication bias was observed owing to restrictions on the sample size. The ascending altitude and sex composition of the study population were likely sources of heterogeneity according to meta-regression. Studies on participants with an ascending altitude of over 3,500 m or composed of both males and females reported a slight but not significant protective effect of smoking on the risk of AMS, with high heterogeneity. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Smoking had no significant effect on AMS risk in this meta-analysis. Current studies showed high heterogeneity and included little information on quantitative exposure to smoking (i.e., dose and frequency); thus, the results require careful explanation.</p>","PeriodicalId":12975,"journal":{"name":"High altitude medicine & biology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"High altitude medicine & biology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/ham.2022.0037","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Controversy remains in the association between smoking and the risk of acute mountain sickness (AMS). Therefore, a systematic review of the existing literature may help clarify this association. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from database inception up to October 19, 2021. Both unadjusted and adjusted relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to compare the risk of AMS in the smoking and nonsmoking groups. Meta-regression was conducted to explore the factors causing heterogeneity of the studies, and subsequent stratified analysis was performed to present the pooled RR in different subgroups. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. Results: A total of 28 eligible articles (31 studies) were included. The pooled unadjusted and adjusted RRs were 0.88 (95% CI: 0.78-1.01) and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.77-0.99), respectively, using random-effect models. Publication bias was observed owing to restrictions on the sample size. The ascending altitude and sex composition of the study population were likely sources of heterogeneity according to meta-regression. Studies on participants with an ascending altitude of over 3,500 m or composed of both males and females reported a slight but not significant protective effect of smoking on the risk of AMS, with high heterogeneity. Conclusions: Smoking had no significant effect on AMS risk in this meta-analysis. Current studies showed high heterogeneity and included little information on quantitative exposure to smoking (i.e., dose and frequency); thus, the results require careful explanation.

吸烟与急性晕山症的风险有关吗?系统回顾与元分析》。
背景:吸烟与急性登山病(AMS)风险之间的关系仍存在争议。因此,对现有文献进行系统回顾可能有助于澄清这种关联。研究方法我们对 PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane 图书馆进行了系统性检索,检索时间为数据库建立至 2021 年 10 月 19 日。我们计算了未调整和调整后的相对风险(RRs)和 95% 置信区间(CIs),以比较吸烟组和不吸烟组发生急性髓系白血病的风险。进行了元回归以探讨导致研究异质性的因素,随后进行了分层分析,以显示不同亚组的总RR。使用漏斗图评估了发表偏倚。研究结果共纳入了 28 篇符合条件的文章(31 项研究)。采用随机效应模型,汇总的未调整和调整RR分别为0.88(95% CI:0.78-1.01)和0.87(95% CI:0.77-0.99)。由于样本量的限制,观察到了发表偏差。根据元回归,研究人群的上升海拔高度和性别构成可能是异质性的来源。对登顶海拔超过 3500 米或由男性和女性组成的研究表明,吸烟对急性髓系阻塞性脑病的风险有轻微但不显著的保护作用,但异质性较高。结论在这项荟萃分析中,吸烟对急性呼吸系统综合症的风险没有明显影响。目前的研究显示出很高的异质性,而且几乎没有关于吸烟定量暴露(即剂量和频率)的信息;因此,需要对结果进行仔细的解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
High altitude medicine & biology
High altitude medicine & biology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
9.50%
发文量
44
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: High Altitude Medicine & Biology is the only peer-reviewed journal covering the medical and biological issues that impact human life at high altitudes. The Journal delivers critical findings on the impact of high altitude on lung and heart disease, appetite and weight loss, pulmonary and cerebral edema, hypertension, dehydration, infertility, and other diseases. It covers the full spectrum of high altitude life sciences from pathology to human and animal ecology.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信