Evidence Hub

Cooking fuels and risk of all-cause and cardiopulmonary mortality in urban China: a prospective cohort study

Kuai Yu, J. Lv, Gao-Kun Qiu, Can-Qing Yu, Yu Guo, Z. Bian, Ling Yang, Yi-Ping Chen et al.

Lancet Global Health, 2020

171 participants · 99 citations

Abstract

Summary Background Cooking practice has transitioned from use of solid fuels to use of clean fuels, with addition of better ventilation facilities. However, the change in mortality risk associated with such a transition remains unclear. Methods The China Kadoorie Biobank (CKB) Study enrolled participants (aged 30–79 years) from ten areas across China; we chose to study participants from five urban areas where transition from use of solid fuels to clean fuels for cooking was prevalent. Participants who reported regular cooking (weekly or more frequently) at baseline were categorised as persistent clean fuel users, previous solid fuel users, or persistent solid fuel users, according to self-reported fuel use histories. All-cause and cardiopulmonary mortality were identified through linkage to China's Disease Surveillance Point system and local mortality records. Findings Between June 24, 2004, and July 15, 2008, 226 186 participants living in five urban areas of China were enrolled in the CKB Study. Among 171 677 participants who reported cooking regularly (weekly or more frequently), 75 785 (44%) were persistent clean fuel users, 80 511 (47%) were previous solid fuel users, and 15 381 (9%) were persistent solid fuel users. During a mean of 9·8 (SD 1·7) years of follow-up, 10 831 deaths were documented, including 3819 cardiovascular deaths and 761 respiratory deaths. Compared with persistent clean fuel users, persistent solid fuel users had significantly higher risks of…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 171 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free