Table 1

 Time-series studies of short-term relationships between air pollution and mortality

AuthorPopulationHealth variables(number of cases)Exposure variables(time resolution,spatial resolution)SES variables(resolution)Method of evaluation of effect modificationLags tested(days)Principal results (95% confidence interval when available)
*No further details available.
BS, black smoke; CO, carbon monoxide; CoH, coefficient of haze; HS, high school; NO2, nitrogen dioxide; O3, ozone; PM, particulate matter; PM10, particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of up to 10 μm; PM2.5, particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of up to 2.5 μm; SO2, sulfur dioxide; TSP, total suspended particulates.
Sametet al36Residents of 20 US cities,all ages,50 000 000 inhabitants,1987–1994Non-trauma mortality(3 000 000),cardio-vascular and respiratory mortality(1 600 000)PM10 adjusted for O3, SO2,NO2, CO(daily mean,city)% High school graduates% Annual income<US$12 675% Annual income>US$100 000(city)Hierarchical bayesian model:First level, log-linear regression of mortality rate according to pollutants and confounders in each city Second level, linear regression of pollutant effects in all cities according to SES characteristics1PM10 - mortality associations in cities not associated with city SES characteristics (95% posterior interval for these SES variables,all include 0*)
Schwartz38Residents of 10 US cities,all ages,14 000 000 inhabitants,1986–1993Non-trauma mortality(1 100 000)PM10 (mean:day of death and preceding day, city)excluding days where it exceeded 150 μg.m−3Unemployment rate% Population below poverty level% Population with a college degree(city)Hierarchical model meta-regression Measurement of the variation of the effect of PM10 for a 5% increase in the SES variable0No modifying effect Results in graphic form Variation of effects of PM on mortality for a 5% increase in the SES variables:% poverty 0 (−0.05; 0.05)% college degree 0 (−0.03; 0.03)unemployment rate 0.02 (−0.06–0.1)
O’Neillet al39Residents of Mexico City,>65 years,20 000 000 inhabitants,1996–1998Non-trauma mortality(206 510)PM10, O3(mean: day of death and preceding day, city)Sociospatial development index(3 classes)% Homes with electricity% Homes with piped water% Homes with drainage% Literacy% Indigenous language speakers(county)Stratified analysis0PM10 not associated with mortality O3:Sociospatial development index High/medium high 2.76 (1.14; 4.40)Medium/medium low 0.64 (−0.44; 1.72)Low/very low 3.78 (0.76; 6.89)% Homes with electricity>99.8, 1.63 (0.50; 2.78)93–99.8, 0.92 (−0.93; 2.81)82–93, 1.50 (−0.94; 4.00)60–82, 2.04 (−0.64; 4.80)% Homes with piped water>99.6, 2.09 (0.56; 3.65)75–99.6, 0.78 (−0.85; 2.44)35–75, 1.58 (−0.28; 3.48)21–35, 1.79 (−0.03; 3.64)% Homes with drainage>99.3, 1.45 (−0.07; 3.01)80–99.3, 1.47 (−0.22; 3.18)45–80, 1.54 (−0.29; 3.40)21–45, 1.88 (0.14; 3.66)% Literacy>97.5, 2.89 (1.34; 4.46)96–97.5, 0.43 (−1.15; 2.04)88–96, 0.92 (−1.09; 2.97)80–88, 1.59 (−0.16; 3.36)% Indigenous language speakers 0.3–1, 1.58 (−0.25; 3.44)1–1.5, 1.20 (−0.26; 2.69)1.5–2, 3.54 (1.56; 5.57)2–6, 0.59 (−1.34; 2.55)6–10.4, 1.18 (−1.52; 3.96)
Martins et al32Residents of six zones of Sao Paulo (Brazil),>60 years,992 018 inhabitants,1997–1999Respiratory mortality(1991)PM10 (3-day moving average,city subdivision(called regions)included in 2-km radius around traffic pollution monitors)% People with college education% Families with monthly income>US$3500% People living in slums (city subdivisions)Spearman rank correlations between associations of PM10with respiratory mortality and SES variables0Effect of PM10 on respiratory mortality:negatively correlated with:% college education (−0.94, p<0.01)% family income >US$3500(−0.94, p<0.01)positively correlated with % people living in slums (0.71, “not significant”*)
Gouveia and Fletcher40Residents of Sao Paulo(Brazil),>65 years,9 500 000 inhabitants,1991–1993Non-trauma mortality(151 756)PM10(daily mean,city)Composite index(4 classes)(58 districts in Sao Paulo)Stratified analysis then interaction term in a model Significance of interaction tested by log-likelihood ratio test0, 1 and 2Results in graphic form Relative risks slightly stronger in more advantaged neighbourhoods(but p>0.50*)
Jerrettet al26Residents of Hamilton(Canada),all ages,320 000 inhabitants,1985–1994Non-trauma mortality(27 458)CoH, SO2,(reciprocal adjustments for these pollutants)(concentrations averaged for 1–3 days before death,5 city subdivisions)Mean household income% Unemployment% Poverty% HS or less% <grade 9% Manufacturing employment(5 city subdivisions)Stratified analysis 1) Maximum likelihood random effects model(evaluation of differences between relative risks of city subdivisions and relative risk for the entire city)2) Regression of mean % change in mortality associated with exposure for SES characteristics in each area0–3Overall, stronger and more significant relative risks and in zones with unfavourable SES characteristics 1) Random effects model: no significant differences in relative risks between zone and entire city 2) Manufacturing employment and educational level significantly correlated with the effect of CoH on mortality(p value not given)*
Cifuenteset al28Residents of Santiago(Chile),25–64 years,5 000 000 inhabitants,1988–1996Non-trauma mortality(43 400)PM2.5, CO(reciprocal adjustments)(mean: day of death+preceding day, city)Educational attainment:-no education-elementary school-HS-university(individual)Stratified analysis0PM2.5After stratification, relative risks were significant (or very nearly so) only in the group with elementary education CO After stratification, no significant relative risk
Villeneuveet al34Vancouver(Canada)residents in British Columbia Health datasets,>65 years,550 000 subjects,1986–1999Non-trauma mortality(93 612)Cardio-vascular mortality(40 840)Respiratory mortality(11 650)TSP, CO, NO2,SO2, O3, PM10,PM2.5 (mean concentrations for the 3 days before death,city)Mean family income(3 classes)(enumeration area)Stratified analysis0Results in graphic form After stratification, the only statistically significant relative risks concerned non-trauma mortality:-NO2 in low and middle income-SO2 in low income (borderline significance)-TSP in high and low income
Zanobetti and Schwartz41Residents of Chicago,Detroit,Minneapolis-St Paul and Pittsburgh (USA),all ages,10 000 000 inhabitants,1986–1993Non-trauma mortality(782 502)PM10 (mean:day of death+preceding day,city), excluded days where it exceeded 150 μg.m−3Educational attainment:<HS⩾HS(individual)Stratified analysis0% Increase in death for 10 μg.m−3increase in PM10<HS 0.92 (0.66–1.18)⩾HS 0.71 (0.19–1.23)Difference judged not statistically significant (because of overlapping confidence intervals)
Wojtyniaket al27Residents of Cracow, Lodz,Poznan and Wroclaw(Poland), 0–70 years or>70 years,2 000 000 inhabitants,1990–1996Non-trauma mortality(unknown)Cardio-vascular mortality(unknown)BS, NO2 and SO2 (mean:day of death+preceding day,city)Educational attainment:-below secondary(primary and vocational)-secondary and above (post secondary and university)(individual)Stratified analysis0–1Non-trauma mortality BS: significant effects only for less than secondary education(< and ⩾70 years)NO2: significant in ⩾70 years regard-less of education: in ⩾70 years for below secondary education only SO2: significant effects only in those ⩾70 years with less than a secondary education Cardiovascular mortality BS: significant effects only for those with less than a secondary education (< and ⩾70 years)NO2: in <70 years, significant for secondary education and above only (similar but not significant for below secondary education)In ⩾70 years, significant regardless of education (but larger in lower education)SO2: significant effects only for those⩾70 years with below secondary education