4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Health Effects of Cyclones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Epidemiological Studies

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          More intense cyclones are expected in the future as a result of climate change. A comprehensive review is urgently needed to summarize and update the evidence on the health effects of cyclones.

          Objectives:

          We aimed to provide a systematic review with meta-analysis of current evidence on the risks of all reported health outcomes related to cyclones and to identify research gaps and make recommendations for further research.

          Methods:

          We systematically searched five electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) for relevant studies in English published before 21 December 2022. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, we developed inclusion criteria, screened the literature, and included epidemiological studies with a quantitative risk assessment of any mortality or morbidity-related outcomes associated with cyclone exposures. We extracted key data and assessed study quality for these studies and applied meta-analyses to quantify the overall effect estimate and the heterogeneity of comparable studies.

          Results:

          In total, 71 studies from eight countries (the United States, China, India, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, Australia, Brazil), mostly the United States, were included in the review. These studies investigated the all-cause and cause-specific mortality, as well as morbidity related to injury, cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), respiratory diseases, infectious diseases, mental disorders, adverse birth outcomes, cancer, diabetes, and other outcomes (e.g., suicide rates, gender-based violence). Studies mostly included only one high-amplitude cyclone (cyclones with a Saffir–Simpson category of 4 or 5, i.e., Hurricanes Katrina or Sandy) and focused on mental disorders morbidity and all-cause mortality and hospitalizations. Consistently elevated risks of overall mental health morbidity, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as well as all-cause mortality or hospitalizations, were found to be associated with cyclones. However, the results for other outcomes were generally mixed or limited. A statistically significant overall relative risk of 1.09 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.04, 1.13], 1.18 (95% CI: 1.12, 1.25), 1.15 (95% CI: 1.13, 1.18), 1.26 (95% CI: 1.05, 1.50) was observed for all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalizations, respiratory disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease hospitalizations, respectively, after cyclone exposures, whereas no statistically significant risks were identified for diabetes mortality, heart disease mortality, and preterm birth. High between-study heterogeneity was observed.

          Conclusions:

          There is generally consistent evidence supporting the notion that high-amplitude cyclones could significantly increase risks of mental disorders, especially for PTSD, as well as mortality and hospitalizations, but the evidence for other health outcomes, such as chronic diseases (e.g., CVDs, cancer, diabetes), and adverse birth outcomes remains limited or inconsistent. More studies with rigorous exposure assessment, of larger spatial and temporal scales, and using advanced modeling strategy are warranted in the future, especially for those small cyclone-prone countries or regions with low and middle incomes. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP12158

          Related collections

          Most cited references135

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

            The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Environ Health Perspect
                Environ Health Perspect
                EHP
                Environmental Health Perspectives
                Environmental Health Perspectives
                0091-6765
                1552-9924
                28 August 2023
                August 2023
                : 131
                : 8
                : 086001
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ]School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                [ 2 ]School of Earth Atmosphere and Environment, Monash University , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                [ 3 ]Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                Author notes
                Address correspondence to Shanshan Li, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia, Telephone: +61 3 9905 6102. Email: shanshan.li@ 123456monash.edu . And, Yuming Guo, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia, Telephone: +61 3 9905 6100. Email: yuming.guo@ 123456monash.edu
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8871-1947
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1766-6592
                Article
                EHP12158
                10.1289/EHP12158
                10461789
                37639476
                60e7c1bf-2e48-4334-8bba-baf637a70d84

                EHP is an open-access journal published with support from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health. All content is public domain unless otherwise noted.

                History
                : 15 September 2022
                : 31 July 2023
                : 03 August 2023
                Categories
                Review

                Public health
                Public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article