Evidence Hub

Continent-based systematic review of the short-term health impacts of wildfire emissions

Bela Barros, Marta Oliveira, Simone Morais

Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B, 2023

40 citations

Abstract

This review systematically gathers and provides an analysis of pollutants levels emitted from wildfire (WF) and their impact on short-term health effects of affected populations. The available literature was searched according to Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcome, and Study design (PECOS) database defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) and a meta-analysis was conducted whenever possible. Data obtained through PECOS characterized information from the USA, Europe, Australia, and some Asian countries; South American countries were seldom characterized, and no data were available for Africa and Russia. Extremely high levels of pollutants, mostly of fine fraction of particulate matter (PM) and ozone, were associated with intense WF emissions in North America, Oceania, and Asia and reported to exceed several-fold the WHO guidelines. Adverse health outcomes include emergency department visits and hospital admissions for cardiorespiratory diseases as well as mortality. Despite the heterogeneity among exposure and health assessment methods, all-cause mortality, and specific-cause mortality were significantly associated with WF emissions in most of the reports. Globally, a significant association was found for all-cause respiratory outcomes including asthma, but mixed results were noted for cardiovascular-related effects. For the latter, estimates were only significant several days after WF emissions, suggesting a more delayed impact on the heart. Different research…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

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