Mt. Whitney

Wagner, Dale R.; D'zatko, Kim; Tatsugawa, Kevin; Murray, Ken; Parker, Daryl; Streeper, Tim; Willard, K. E.

doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e31817e91b8

Cited by 27 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although no previous systematic evaluation or meta-analysis has shown that AMS has obvious sex-based differences, most of studies are consistent with the results of this meta-analysis (total 15/18); for example, MacInnis et al [30] reported that the prevalence in women was 45.5%, which was 12.5% higher than the prevalence in men, indicating that women were more likely than men to suffer from AMS (45.5% vs 34.0%, RR = 1.62). In contrast, there have been reports that men are more likely than women to suffer from AMS [9, 10].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous studies that reported sex as a risk factor for AMS were inconsistent, although some indicated that women are more likely to suffer from AMS than men. For example, in Murdoch’s report, the prevalence of AMS was 88.6% vs 69.0% (women vs. men, respectively) [4], and rates of 60.0% vs. 21.9% (women vs. men, respectively) were reported in the study by other authors [8], while other studies showed a higher prevalence in men [9, 10] or no sex-based difference [11, 12]. Although it has been suggested that sex-based differences in the prevalence of AMS patients exist, to date, no systematic review or meta-analysis has addressed this issue.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sex-based differences in the prevalence of acute mountain sickness: a meta-analysis

Hou

Tan³

et al. 2019

Military Med Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundWhen lowlanders rapidly ascend to altitudes > 2500 m, they may develop acute mountain sickness (AMS). The individual susceptibility, ascending velocity, time spent at altitude, activity levels and altitude reached are considered risk factors for AMS. However, it is not clear whether sex is a risk factor. The results have been inconclusive. We conducted a meta-analysis to test whether there were sex-based differences in the prevalence of AMS using Lake Louise Scoring System.MethodsSystematic searches were performed in August 2019 in EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science for prospective studies with AMS data for men and women. The titles and abstracts were independently checked in the primary screening step, and the selected full-text articles were independently assessed in the secondary screening step by the two authors (YPH and JLW) based on pre-defined inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis was performed using by the STATA 14.1 software program. A random-effects model was employed.ResultsEighteen eligible prospective studies were included. A total of 7669 participants (2639 [34.4%] women) were tested. The results showed that there was a statistically significant higher prevalence rate of AMS in women than in men (RR = 1.24, 95%CI 1.09–1.41), regardless of age or race. Howerver, the heterogeneity was significant in the analysis (Tau2 = 0.0403, Chi2 = 50.15, df = 17; I2 = 66.1%, P = 0.000), it was main caused by different numbers of subjects among the studies (coefficient = − 2.17, P = 0.049). Besides, the results showed that there was no evidence of significant publication bias in the combined studies on the basis of Egger’s test (bias coefficient = 1.48, P = 0.052) and Begg’s test (P = 0.130).ConclusionsAccording to this study, the statistically significant finding emerging from this study was that women have a higher prevalence of AMS. However, the authors could not exclude studies where patients were on acetazolamide. Our analysis provided a direction for future studies of the relationship of sex and the risk of AMS, such as the pathological mechanism and prevention research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sex-based differences in the prevalence of acute mountain sickness: a meta-analysis

Hou

Tan³

et al. 2019

Military Med Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thirty-four studies did not meet the inclusion criteria or were not an original study. Finally, we identified 11 full-text studies on smoking and AMS for inclusion in the meta-analysis, including 7 cross-sectional studies [ 4 , 13 , 16 – 18 ], 3 cohort studies [ 11 , 14 , 15 ], and 1 case-control study [ 12 ]. Figure 1 depicts the search process.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationship between Smoking and Acute Mountain Sickness: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

Masuet-Aumatell

Sánchez-Mascuñano

Santangelo

et al. 2017

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims Previous epidemiological investigations of the relationship between smoking and acute mountain sickness (AMS) risk yielded inconsistent findings. Therefore, a meta-analysis of observational studies was performed to determine whether smoking is related to the development of AMS. Methods Searches were performed on PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science for relevant studies that were published before November 2016 reporting smoking prevalence and AMS. Two evaluators independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed study quality. The pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained using random-effects models. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the type of participant, altitude, and study design. Results A total of 11 observational studies involving 7,106 participants, 2,408 of which had AMS, were eligible for inclusion in this meta-analysis. The summary RR for AMS comparing smokers to nonsmokers was 1.02 (95% CI: 0.83 to 1.26). Specific analyses for altitude, type of participant, and study design yielded similar results. There was significant heterogeneity for all studies (Q = 37.43; P < 0.001; I2 = 73%, 95% CI: 51% to 85%). No publication bias was observed (Egger's test: P = 0.548, Begg's test: P = 0.418). Conclusions The meta-analysis indicates that no difference was found in AMS risk with regard to smoking status.

show abstract

“…However, according to [ 116 ], susceptibility to AMS does not differ according to gender. The authors of [ 117 , 118 ] found that women are more likely to develop AMS, but at the same time there are data demonstrating that, vice versa, men are more predisposed to suffer from AMS than women [ 119 ]. Thus, this question remains not fully understood and requires further research paying attention to the reproductive status and female estrous cycle phase.…”

Section: Physiological Biochemical and Molecular-biological Charmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in Tolerance to Hypoxia: Physiological, Biochemical, and Molecular-Biological Characteristics

Джалилова

Makarova

2020

Biomedicines

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hypoxia plays an important role in the development of many infectious, inflammatory, and tumor diseases. The predisposition to such disorders is mostly provided by differences in basic tolerance to oxygen deficiency, which we discuss in this review. Except the direct exposure of different-severity hypoxia in decompression chambers or in highland conditions, there are no alternative methods for determining organism tolerance. Due to the variability of the detection methods, differences in many parameters between tolerant and susceptible organisms are still not well-characterized, but some of them can serve as biomarkers of susceptibility to hypoxia. At the moment, several potential biomarkers in conditions after hypoxic exposure have been identified both in experimental animals and humans. The main potential biomarkers are Hypoxia-Inducible Factor (HIF)-1, Heat-Shock Protein 70 (HSP70), and NO. Due to the different mechanisms of various high-altitude diseases, biomarkers may not be highly specific and universal. Therefore, it is extremely important to conduct research on hypoxia susceptibility biomarkers. Moreover, it is important to develop a method for the evaluation of organisms’ basic hypoxia tolerance without the necessity of any oxygen deficiency exposure. This can contribute to new personalized medicine approaches’ development for diagnostics and the treatment of inflammatory and tumor diseases, taking into account hypoxia tolerance differences.

show abstract

Mt. Whitney

Abstract: A high percentage of trekkers reached the summit despite having symptoms of AMS.

Cited by 27 publications

References 18 publications

Sex-based differences in the prevalence of acute mountain sickness: a meta-analysis

Sex-based differences in the prevalence of acute mountain sickness: a meta-analysis

Relationship between Smoking and Acute Mountain Sickness: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

Differences in Tolerance to Hypoxia: Physiological, Biochemical, and Molecular-Biological Characteristics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About