↓ Skip to main content

Repeating cardiopulmonary health effects in rural North Carolina population during a second large peat wildfire

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Health, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Repeating cardiopulmonary health effects in rural North Carolina population during a second large peat wildfire
Published in
Environmental Health, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12940-016-0093-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Melissa A. Tinling, J. Jason West, Wayne E. Cascio, Vasu Kilaru, Ana G. Rappold

Abstract

Cardiovascular health effects of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) exposure from wildfire smoke are neither definitive nor consistent with PM2.5 from other air pollution sources. Non-comparability among wildfire health studies limits research conclusions. We examined cardiovascular and respiratory health outcomes related to peat wildfire smoke exposure in a population where strong associations were previously reported for the 2008 Evans Road peat wildfire. We conducted a population-based epidemiologic investigation of associations between daily county-level modeled wildfire PM2.5 and cardiopulmonary emergency department (ED) visits during the 2011 Pains Bay wildfire in eastern North Carolina. We estimated changes in the relative risk cumulative over 0-2 lagged days of wildfire PM2.5 exposure using a quasi-Poisson regression model adjusted for weather, weekends, and poverty. Relative risk associated with a 10 μg/m(3) increase in 24-h PM2.5 was significantly elevated in adults for respiratory/other chest symptoms 1.06 (1.00-1.13), upper respiratory infections 1.13 (1.05-1.22), hypertension 1.05 (1.00-1.09) and 'all-cause' cardiac outcomes 1.06 (1.00-1.13) and in youth for respiratory/other chest symptoms 1.18 (1.06-1.33), upper respiratory infections 1.14 (1.04-1.24) and 'all-cause' respiratory conditions 1.09 (1.01-1.17). Our results replicate evidence for increased risk of cardiovascular outcomes from wildfire PM2.5 and suggest that cardiovascular health should be considered when evaluating the public health burden of wildfire smoke.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 148 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 15%
Student > Master 22 15%
Researcher 18 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 9%
Other 8 5%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 43 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 14%
Environmental Science 19 13%
Engineering 10 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Other 28 19%
Unknown 55 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 August 2019.
All research outputs
#6,182,548
of 24,562,945 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#750
of 1,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,809
of 406,625 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#22
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,562,945 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,565 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 406,625 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.