Evidence Hub

Quantifying the Pulmonary Risks of Volcanic Gas Inhalation: A Meta-Analysis

Septriana Putri, Yessy Susanty Sabri

Bioscientia Medicina Journal of Biomedicine and Translational Research, 2024

2,215 participants

Abstract

Background: Volcanic eruptions release a complex mixture of gases and particulate matter, posing significant respiratory health risks. This meta-analysis aims to quantify the association between volcanic gas inhalation and adverse pulmonary effects. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted for studies published between 2013 and 2024 investigating the respiratory effects of volcanic gas exposure. Studies reporting quantitative data on lung function, respiratory symptoms, or disease prevalence were included. Random-effect models were used to pool effect estimates, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. Results: Six studies (n = 2,215 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Volcanic gas exposure was associated with a significant decrease in FEV1 (forced expiratory volume in 1 second) (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.55, 95% CI: -0.67 to -0.42, I² = 51%), increased prevalence of asthma (odds ratio [OR] = 3.31, 95% CI: 1.84 to 5.96, I² = 76%), and chronic bronchitis (OR = 2.86, 95% CI: 1.97 to 4.15, I² =0%). Subgroup analysis revealed a stronger association between gas exposure and respiratory effects in children and individuals with pre-existing lung conditions. Conclusion: This meta-analysis provides compelling evidence that volcanic gas inhalation is detrimental to respiratory health. Public health interventions should prioritize vulnerable populations during and after volcanic eruptions.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 2,215 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