Table 3.
Environmental factors significantly associated with CRS in prior studies
| Study [Ref] | Design | Criteria for CRS Diagnosis | Criteria for Environmental Factors Exposure Confirmation | Relevant Results aOR (95%CI) | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tobacco | |||||
| Jarvis et al. 2012 [5] | Cross-sectional prospective | Patient-reported symptoms | Patient response | CRS vs non-CRS Current smoker: 1.0 (0.9–1.2) Former smoker: 1.2 (1.1–1.3) |
European general population based on survey responses (n=53,185) |
| Tan et al. 2013 [6**] | Case-control Retrospective | ICD-9 | ICD-9 | CRSsNP vs control: 1.3 (1.1–1.6) CRSwNP vs control: 1.2 (0.8–1.9) |
Based on a US primary care population (n=446,480) |
| Chen et al. 2003 [77] | Cross-sectional Prospective | Patient-reported symptoms | Patient response | CRS vs non-CRS In male with allergy, without allergy Current smoker: 0.8 (0.5–1.3), 1.7 (1.1–2.4) Former smoker: 0.7 (0.4–1.1), 1.0 (0.6–1.5) In female with allergy, without allergy Current smoker: 1.7 (1.2–2.4), 1.4 (1.0–2.0) Former smoker: 1.2 (0.9–1.6), 1.2 (0.9–1.7) |
Canadian second cycle of National Population Health Survey (NPHS) (n=73,364) |
| Hastan et al. 2011 [78] | Cross-sectional Prospective | Patient-reported symptoms | Patient response | CRS vs non-CRS Current smoker: 1.7 (1.6–1.9)* Former smoker: 1.2 (1.0–1.3) |
European general population based on survey responses (n=57,128) |
| Thilsing et al. 2012 [79**] | Cross-sectional Prospective | Patient-reported symptoms | Patient response | CRS vs non-CRS (aRR, 95% CL) In male Current smoker: 1.9 (1.3–2.8)* Former smoker: 1.1 (0.7–1.8) In female Current smoker: 2.5 (1.7–3.7)* Former smoker: 1.6 (1.0–2.6)* |
Part of a trans-European GA2LEN (Global Asthma and Allergy European Network)-based study, Danish population (n=4,554) |
| Tammemagi et al. 2010 [80] | Case-control retrospective | ICD-9 with confirmation by CT or nasal endoscopy | Patient response | CRS vs non-CRS: SHS 2.2 (1.5–3.2)* | CRS patients from a specialty clinic and controls from primary care (n=612) |
| Lieu et al. 2000 [81] | Cross-sectional prospective | Patient-reported symptoms | Patient response | CRS vs non-CRS (aRR, 95%CI) Current smoker: 1.2 (1.1–1.4) Former smoker: 1.1 (0.9–1.3) | Natuinal Health And Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES III) (n=20,050) |
| Air Pollution | |||||
| Min et al. 1996 [86] | Cross-sectional prospective | Symptoms and physical examination performed by clinicans | Patient response | CRS vs non-CRS Rural 0.7 (0.4–1.1) | Korean general population based on survey responses (n=9,069) |
| Wolf 2002 [87] | Case-control retrospective | Diagnosed by otolaryngologist | Air quality measurement | In total, no correlation between air pollution levels and CRS rates In the districts with above average air pollution levels, positive correlation between air pollution levels and CRS rates (adjusted R2=0.3) | Tertiary care hospital in Cologne, Germany (n=1,435) |
| Occupational factors | |||||
| Thilsing et al. 2012 [79**] | Cross-sectional prospective | Patient-reported symptoms | Patient response | CRS vs non-CRS (aRR, 95% CL) High molecular weight agents 0.9 (0.6–1.4) Animal dander 1.9 (1.0–3.6) Fish or shellfish 2.07 (1.4–3.0)* Latex 1.1 (0.7–1.7) Pharmaceutical products 0.5 (0.1–2.0) Low molecular weight agents 1.3 (0.9–1.9) Highly reactive chemicals 1.4 (1.0–2.2) Isocyanides 3.1 (0.9–10.7) Reactive cleaning disinfectants 1.3 (0.8–2.2) Metal and metal fumes 0.9 (0.4–1.8) Mixed environments 0.9 (0.4–1.7) Agriculture 0.9 (0.4–2.0) | Part of a trans-European GA2LEN (Global Asthma and Allergy European Network)-based study, Danish population (n=4,554) |
CRS, chronic rhinosinusitis; aOR, adjusted odds ratio; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; CRSsNP, chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyp; CRSwNP, chroni rhinosinusitis without nasal polyp; aRR, adjusted risk ratios; 95%CL, 95% confidence limits; SHS: second hand smoke
*
statistically significant