为预防或减轻呼吸道症状、感染及哮喘而修补受潮及发霉损坏的楼宇(检讨)

Riitta Sauni, Jukka Uitti, Merja Jauhiainen, Kathleen Kreiss, Torben Sigsgaard, Jos H Verbeek
{"title":"为预防或减轻呼吸道症状、感染及哮喘而修补受潮及发霉损坏的楼宇(检讨)","authors":"Riitta Sauni,&nbsp;Jukka Uitti,&nbsp;Merja Jauhiainen,&nbsp;Kathleen Kreiss,&nbsp;Torben Sigsgaard,&nbsp;Jos H Verbeek","doi":"10.1002/ebch.1914","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Dampness and mould in buildings have been associated with adverse respiratory symptoms, asthma and respiratory infections of inhabitants. Moisture damage is a very common problem in private houses, workplaces and public buildings such as schools.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To determine the effectiveness of remediating buildings damaged by dampness and mould in order to reduce or prevent respiratory tract symptoms, infections and symptoms of asthma.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Search methods</h3>\n \n <p>We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (<i>The Cochrane Library</i> 2011, Issue 2), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1951 to June week 1, 2011), EMBASE (1974 to June 2011), CINAHL (1982 to June 2011), Science Citation Index (1973 to June 2011), Biosis Previews (1989 to June 2011), NIOSHTIC (1930 to November 2010) and CISDOC (1974 to November 2010).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Selection criteria</h3>\n \n <p>Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs (cRCTs), interrupted time series studies and controlled before-after (CBA) studies of the effects of remediating dampness and mould in a building on respiratory symptoms, infections and asthma.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Data collection and analysis</h3>\n \n <p>Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main results</h3>\n \n <p>We included eight studies (6538 participants); two RCTs (294 participants), one cRCT (4407 participants) and five CBA studies (1837 participants). The interventions varied from thorough renovation to cleaning only. We found moderate-quality evidence in adults that repairing houses decreased asthma-related symptoms (among others, wheezing (odds ratio (OR) 0.64; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 0.75) and respiratory infections (among others, rhinitis (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.66)). For children, we found moderate-quality evidence that the number of acute care visits (among others mean difference (MD) -0.45; 95% CI -0.76 to -0.14)) decreased in the group receiving thorough remediation.</p>\n \n <p>One CBA study showed very low-quality evidence that after repairing a mould-damaged office building, asthma-related and other respiratory symptoms decreased. For children and staff in schools, there was very low-quality evidence that asthma-related and other respiratory symptoms in mould-damaged schools were similar to those of children and staff in non-damaged schools, both before and after intervention. For children, respiratory infections might have decreased after the intervention.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Authors' conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>We found moderate to very low-quality evidence that repairing mould-damaged houses and offices decreases asthma-related symptoms and respiratory infections compared to no intervention in adults. There is very low-quality evidence that although repairing schools did not significantly change respiratory symptoms in staff or children, pupils' visits to physicians due to a common cold were less frequent after remediation of the school. Better research, preferably with a cRCT design and with more validated outcome measures, is needed.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Plain Language Summary</h3>\n \n <p>Interventions for preventing or reducing symptoms of asthma, other respiratory symptoms and respiratory infections in mould-damaged buildings</p>\n \n <p>Moisture damage is a very common problem in private houses, workplaces and public buildings around the world and has been associated with adverse respiratory symptoms, asthma and respiratory infections of inhabitants. Our aim was to determine the effectiveness of remediating buildings damaged by dampness and mould in reducing or preventing the occurrence of respiratory tract symptoms, infections and symptoms of asthma.</p>\n \n <p>We included eight studies with 6538 participants; three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and five non-RCTs. The interventions aimed to remove mould and dampness from family houses, schools or, in one study, an office building. When remediation of houses was compared to no intervention at all, we found evidence that mould remediation reduced asthma-related symptoms and respiratory infections. It also decreased the use of asthma medication in asthmatics. We found very low-quality evidence that after repairing a mould-damaged office that asthma-related and other respiratory symptoms decreased.</p>\n \n <p>For extensive remediation compared with information only, there was moderate-quality evidence that the number of asthma symptom days among asthmatic children did not decrease significantly. However, the number of emergency and inpatient visits decreased after the repair of the building. Pupil visits to physicians due to a common cold were less frequent after the building was repaired but respiratory symptoms (stuffy nose, runny nose, dry throat, hoarseness, eye irritation) were similar before and after the intervention both among pupils and adults working in the schools. Due to a wide range of outcome measures and variation in study designs, it was difficult to draw hard conclusions. Better research is needed, preferably with a cluster-RCT (cRCT) design and with more validated outcome measures.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":12162,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based child health : a Cochrane review journal","volume":"8 3","pages":"944-1000"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/ebch.1914","citationCount":"34","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Remediating buildings damaged by dampness and mould for preventing or reducing respiratory tract symptoms, infections and asthma (Review)\",\"authors\":\"Riitta Sauni,&nbsp;Jukka Uitti,&nbsp;Merja Jauhiainen,&nbsp;Kathleen Kreiss,&nbsp;Torben Sigsgaard,&nbsp;Jos H Verbeek\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ebch.1914\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Dampness and mould in buildings have been associated with adverse respiratory symptoms, asthma and respiratory infections of inhabitants. Moisture damage is a very common problem in private houses, workplaces and public buildings such as schools.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>To determine the effectiveness of remediating buildings damaged by dampness and mould in order to reduce or prevent respiratory tract symptoms, infections and symptoms of asthma.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Search methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (<i>The Cochrane Library</i> 2011, Issue 2), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1951 to June week 1, 2011), EMBASE (1974 to June 2011), CINAHL (1982 to June 2011), Science Citation Index (1973 to June 2011), Biosis Previews (1989 to June 2011), NIOSHTIC (1930 to November 2010) and CISDOC (1974 to November 2010).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Selection criteria</h3>\\n \\n <p>Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs (cRCTs), interrupted time series studies and controlled before-after (CBA) studies of the effects of remediating dampness and mould in a building on respiratory symptoms, infections and asthma.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Data collection and analysis</h3>\\n \\n <p>Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Main results</h3>\\n \\n <p>We included eight studies (6538 participants); two RCTs (294 participants), one cRCT (4407 participants) and five CBA studies (1837 participants). The interventions varied from thorough renovation to cleaning only. We found moderate-quality evidence in adults that repairing houses decreased asthma-related symptoms (among others, wheezing (odds ratio (OR) 0.64; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 0.75) and respiratory infections (among others, rhinitis (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.66)). For children, we found moderate-quality evidence that the number of acute care visits (among others mean difference (MD) -0.45; 95% CI -0.76 to -0.14)) decreased in the group receiving thorough remediation.</p>\\n \\n <p>One CBA study showed very low-quality evidence that after repairing a mould-damaged office building, asthma-related and other respiratory symptoms decreased. For children and staff in schools, there was very low-quality evidence that asthma-related and other respiratory symptoms in mould-damaged schools were similar to those of children and staff in non-damaged schools, both before and after intervention. For children, respiratory infections might have decreased after the intervention.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Authors' conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>We found moderate to very low-quality evidence that repairing mould-damaged houses and offices decreases asthma-related symptoms and respiratory infections compared to no intervention in adults. There is very low-quality evidence that although repairing schools did not significantly change respiratory symptoms in staff or children, pupils' visits to physicians due to a common cold were less frequent after remediation of the school. Better research, preferably with a cRCT design and with more validated outcome measures, is needed.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Plain Language Summary</h3>\\n \\n <p>Interventions for preventing or reducing symptoms of asthma, other respiratory symptoms and respiratory infections in mould-damaged buildings</p>\\n \\n <p>Moisture damage is a very common problem in private houses, workplaces and public buildings around the world and has been associated with adverse respiratory symptoms, asthma and respiratory infections of inhabitants. Our aim was to determine the effectiveness of remediating buildings damaged by dampness and mould in reducing or preventing the occurrence of respiratory tract symptoms, infections and symptoms of asthma.</p>\\n \\n <p>We included eight studies with 6538 participants; three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and five non-RCTs. The interventions aimed to remove mould and dampness from family houses, schools or, in one study, an office building. When remediation of houses was compared to no intervention at all, we found evidence that mould remediation reduced asthma-related symptoms and respiratory infections. It also decreased the use of asthma medication in asthmatics. We found very low-quality evidence that after repairing a mould-damaged office that asthma-related and other respiratory symptoms decreased.</p>\\n \\n <p>For extensive remediation compared with information only, there was moderate-quality evidence that the number of asthma symptom days among asthmatic children did not decrease significantly. However, the number of emergency and inpatient visits decreased after the repair of the building. Pupil visits to physicians due to a common cold were less frequent after the building was repaired but respiratory symptoms (stuffy nose, runny nose, dry throat, hoarseness, eye irritation) were similar before and after the intervention both among pupils and adults working in the schools. Due to a wide range of outcome measures and variation in study designs, it was difficult to draw hard conclusions. Better research is needed, preferably with a cluster-RCT (cRCT) design and with more validated outcome measures.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12162,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence-based child health : a Cochrane review journal\",\"volume\":\"8 3\",\"pages\":\"944-1000\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-05-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/ebch.1914\",\"citationCount\":\"34\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence-based child health : a Cochrane review journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ebch.1914\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-based child health : a Cochrane review journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ebch.1914","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 34

摘要

背景:建筑物中的潮湿和霉菌与居民的不良呼吸道症状、哮喘和呼吸道感染有关。在私人住宅、工作场所和学校等公共建筑中,湿气损害是一个非常普遍的问题。目的探讨湿霉破坏建筑物的修复对减轻或预防呼吸道症状、感染和哮喘症状的效果。我们检索了Cochrane中央对照试验注册库(Central) (Cochrane图书馆2011年第2期),其中包括Cochrane急性呼吸道感染组专业注册库、MEDLINE(1951年至2011年6月第1周)、EMBASE(1974年至2011年6月)、CINAHL(1982年至2011年6月)、Science Citation Index(1973年至2011年6月)、Biosis Previews(1989年至2011年6月)、NIOSHTIC(1930 - 2010年11月)和CISDOC(1974 - 2010年11月)。随机对照试验(rct)、集群随机对照试验(crct)、中断时间序列研究和对照前后(CBA)研究,研究修复建筑物内潮湿和霉菌对呼吸道症状、感染和哮喘的影响。资料收集和分析两位作者独立提取资料并评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。我们纳入了8项研究(6538名受试者);2项rct(294名受试者),1项cRCT(4407名受试者)和5项CBA研究(1837名受试者)。干预措施从彻底翻新到仅进行清洁不等。我们在成人中发现中等质量的证据表明,修理房屋可以减少哮喘相关症状(其中包括喘息)(优势比(OR) 0.64;95%可信区间(CI) 0.55 ~ 0.75)和呼吸道感染(其中鼻炎(OR 0.57;95% CI 0.49 ~ 0.66))。对于儿童,我们发现中等质量的证据表明,急症护理就诊次数(其中MD) -0.45;95% CI(-0.76至-0.14))在接受彻底补救的组中下降。CBA的一项研究显示,在修复了一栋被霉菌损坏的办公楼后,哮喘相关症状和其他呼吸系统症状有所减轻。对于学校的儿童和工作人员,有非常低质量的证据表明,在干预之前和之后,霉菌受损学校的哮喘相关症状和其他呼吸道症状与未受损学校的儿童和工作人员相似。对儿童来说,干预后呼吸道感染可能有所减少。作者的结论:我们发现中度到极低质量的证据表明,与不进行干预相比,修复被霉菌损坏的房屋和办公室可以减少成人哮喘相关症状和呼吸道感染。有非常低质量的证据表明,虽然修缮学校并没有显著改变工作人员或儿童的呼吸道症状,但修缮学校后,学生因普通感冒去看医生的次数减少了。需要更好的研究,最好是采用cRCT设计和更有效的结果测量。湿损是世界各地私人住宅、工作场所和公共建筑中非常常见的问题,并与居民的不良呼吸道症状、哮喘和呼吸道感染有关。我们的目的是确定修复被潮湿和霉菌损坏的建筑物在减少或预防呼吸道症状、感染和哮喘症状发生方面的有效性。我们纳入了8项研究,共6538名受试者;3项随机对照试验(rct)和5项非随机对照试验。在一项研究中,这些干预措施旨在清除家庭住宅、学校或办公楼中的霉菌和湿气。当对房屋进行修复与完全不进行干预进行比较时,我们发现了霉菌修复减少哮喘相关症状和呼吸道感染的证据。它还减少了哮喘患者使用哮喘药物。我们发现非常低质量的证据表明,在修复了霉菌损坏的办公室后,哮喘相关症状和其他呼吸道症状有所减轻。 与仅提供信息相比,对于广泛的补救措施,有中等质量的证据表明哮喘儿童的哮喘症状天数没有显著减少。但是,在大楼修复后,急诊和住院病人的次数减少了。在建筑修复后,学生因普通感冒去看医生的次数减少了,但在干预前后,在学校工作的学生和成年人的呼吸系统症状(鼻塞、流鼻涕、喉咙干、声音嘶哑、眼睛刺激)相似。由于结果测量的范围很广,研究设计也存在差异,因此很难得出确切的结论。需要更好的研究,最好是采用集群随机对照试验(cRCT)设计和更有效的结果测量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Remediating buildings damaged by dampness and mould for preventing or reducing respiratory tract symptoms, infections and asthma (Review)

Background

Dampness and mould in buildings have been associated with adverse respiratory symptoms, asthma and respiratory infections of inhabitants. Moisture damage is a very common problem in private houses, workplaces and public buildings such as schools.

Objectives

To determine the effectiveness of remediating buildings damaged by dampness and mould in order to reduce or prevent respiratory tract symptoms, infections and symptoms of asthma.

Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1951 to June week 1, 2011), EMBASE (1974 to June 2011), CINAHL (1982 to June 2011), Science Citation Index (1973 to June 2011), Biosis Previews (1989 to June 2011), NIOSHTIC (1930 to November 2010) and CISDOC (1974 to November 2010).

Selection criteria

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs (cRCTs), interrupted time series studies and controlled before-after (CBA) studies of the effects of remediating dampness and mould in a building on respiratory symptoms, infections and asthma.

Data collection and analysis

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.

Main results

We included eight studies (6538 participants); two RCTs (294 participants), one cRCT (4407 participants) and five CBA studies (1837 participants). The interventions varied from thorough renovation to cleaning only. We found moderate-quality evidence in adults that repairing houses decreased asthma-related symptoms (among others, wheezing (odds ratio (OR) 0.64; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 0.75) and respiratory infections (among others, rhinitis (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.66)). For children, we found moderate-quality evidence that the number of acute care visits (among others mean difference (MD) -0.45; 95% CI -0.76 to -0.14)) decreased in the group receiving thorough remediation.

One CBA study showed very low-quality evidence that after repairing a mould-damaged office building, asthma-related and other respiratory symptoms decreased. For children and staff in schools, there was very low-quality evidence that asthma-related and other respiratory symptoms in mould-damaged schools were similar to those of children and staff in non-damaged schools, both before and after intervention. For children, respiratory infections might have decreased after the intervention.

Authors' conclusions

We found moderate to very low-quality evidence that repairing mould-damaged houses and offices decreases asthma-related symptoms and respiratory infections compared to no intervention in adults. There is very low-quality evidence that although repairing schools did not significantly change respiratory symptoms in staff or children, pupils' visits to physicians due to a common cold were less frequent after remediation of the school. Better research, preferably with a cRCT design and with more validated outcome measures, is needed.

Plain Language Summary

Interventions for preventing or reducing symptoms of asthma, other respiratory symptoms and respiratory infections in mould-damaged buildings

Moisture damage is a very common problem in private houses, workplaces and public buildings around the world and has been associated with adverse respiratory symptoms, asthma and respiratory infections of inhabitants. Our aim was to determine the effectiveness of remediating buildings damaged by dampness and mould in reducing or preventing the occurrence of respiratory tract symptoms, infections and symptoms of asthma.

We included eight studies with 6538 participants; three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and five non-RCTs. The interventions aimed to remove mould and dampness from family houses, schools or, in one study, an office building. When remediation of houses was compared to no intervention at all, we found evidence that mould remediation reduced asthma-related symptoms and respiratory infections. It also decreased the use of asthma medication in asthmatics. We found very low-quality evidence that after repairing a mould-damaged office that asthma-related and other respiratory symptoms decreased.

For extensive remediation compared with information only, there was moderate-quality evidence that the number of asthma symptom days among asthmatic children did not decrease significantly. However, the number of emergency and inpatient visits decreased after the repair of the building. Pupil visits to physicians due to a common cold were less frequent after the building was repaired but respiratory symptoms (stuffy nose, runny nose, dry throat, hoarseness, eye irritation) were similar before and after the intervention both among pupils and adults working in the schools. Due to a wide range of outcome measures and variation in study designs, it was difficult to draw hard conclusions. Better research is needed, preferably with a cluster-RCT (cRCT) design and with more validated outcome measures.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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