Air Quality and COVID-19 Prevalence/Fatality

  1. Hisato Takagi
  2. Toshiki Kuno
  3. Yujiro Yokoyama
  4. Hiroki Ueyama
  5. Yosuke Hari
  6. Tomo Ando

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

To investigate the association of real-time/observed ozone/PM2.5 levels with COVID-19 prevalence/fatality, meta-regression of data from the Northeast megalopolis was conducted. Daily Air Quality Index (AQI) values based on available ozone/PM2.5 data in these counties/cities (3/15/2020–5/31/2020) were extracted from US Environmental Protection Agency and World Air Quality Project. In each county/city, total confirmed COVID-19 cases/deaths (5/31/2020) were available from Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center, and total population was extracted from US Census Bureau. Random-effects meta-regression was performed using OpenMetaAnalyst. A meta-regression graph depicted COVID-19 prevalence and fatality (plotted as logarithm-transformed prevalence/fatality on the y-axis) as a function of mean ozone/PM2.5 AQI (plotted on the x-axis). Coefficients were not statistically significant for ozone (P = 0.212/0.814 for prevalence/fatality) and PM2.5 (P = 0.986/0.499). Although multivariable analysis had been planned, it was not performed because of non-significant covariates of interest in the univariable model. In conclusion, ozone/PM2.5 may be unassociated with COVID-19 prevalence/fatality.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.14.20130740: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.14.20130740v1 on medRxiv