The role of secondhand smoke in allergic rhinitis: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this work was to systematically review existing literature on the association between allergic rhinitis (AR) and secondhand smoking (SHS) in children and adults. METHODS: We performed a literature search encompassing the last 25 years in PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE. Inclusion criteria included English language papers containing original human data with greater than 6 subjects. Data was systematically collected on study design, patient demographics, clinical characteristics/outcomes, and level-of-evidence (Oxford Center of Evidence-Based Medicine). Quality assessment of the studies was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Two investigators independently reviewed all manuscripts. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 590 abstracts, of which 40 articles were included. 12 (37.5%) of the 32 articles studying children and 5 (62.5%) of the 8 articles studying adults showed a statistically significant association between AR and SHS. One article was a prospective cohort study (Level 2b) and all other articles were case-control studies (Level 3b). For characterizing AR, 10 (25%) studies included skin-prick testing and 5 (12.5%) used in vitro testing. For determining presence of SHS, 39 (97.5%) of the studies used questionnaires and 1 article used a cotinine/creatinine ratio. CONCLUSION: This review demonstrated a majority of adult studies vs a minority of children studies found a significant association between AR and SHS. However, the percent difference between age groups was not statistically significant. Further higher-quality studies with validated methods for diagnosing AR and quantifying SHS exposure should be performed to better evaluate the relationship between AR and SHS in adults and children.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".