Abstract
In recent years, the precision of exposure assessment methods has been rapidly improved and more widely adopted in epidemiological studies. However, such methodological advancement has introduced additional heterogeneity among studies. The precision of exposure assessment has become a potential confounding factors in meta-analyses, whose impacts on effect calculation remain unclear. To explore, we conducted a meta-analysis to integrate the long- and short-term exposure effects of PM(2.5), NO(2), and O(3) on all-cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory mortality in the Chinese population. Literature was identified through Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure before August 28, 2023. Sub-group analyses were performed to quantify the impact of exposure assessment precisions and pollution levels on the estimated risk. Studies achieving merely city-level resolution and population exposure are classified as using traditional assessment methods, while those achieving sub-kilometer simulations and individual exposure are considered finer assessment methods. Using finer assessment methods, the RR (under 10 μg/m(3) increment, with 95% confidence intervals) for long-term NO(2) exposure to all-cause mortality was 1.13 (1.05-1.23), significantly higher (p-value = 0.01) than the traditional assessment result of 1.02 (1.00-1.03). Similar trends were observed for long-term PM(2.5) and short-term NO(2) exposure. A decrease in short-term PM(2.5) levels led to an increase in the RR for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, from 1.0035 (1.0016-1.0053) and 1.0051 (1.0021-1.0081) to 1.0055 (1.0035-1.0075) and 1.0086 (1.0061-1.0111), with weak between-group significance (p-value = 0.13 and 0.09), respectively. Based on the quantitative analysis and literature information, we summarized four key factors influencing exposure assessment precision under a conceptualized framework: pollution simulation resolution, subject granularity, micro-environment classification, and pollution levels. Our meta-analysis highlighted the urgency to improve pollution simulation resolution, and we provide insights for researchers, policy-makers and the public. By integrating the most up-to-date epidemiological research, our study has the potential to provide systematic evidence and motivation for environmental management.