Occupational exposure to extremely low-frequency magnetic fields and risk of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis : results of a feasibility study for a pooled analysis of original data

Previous meta-analyses have suggested an increased risk of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) associated with occupational exposure to extremely low-frequency magnetic fields (ELF-MF). However, results should be interpreted with caution since studies were methodologically heterogeneous. Here, we assessed the feasibility of a pooling study to harmonize and re-analyze available original data. A systematic literature search was conducted. Published epidemiological studies were identified in PubMed and EMF-Portal from literature databases′ inception dates until January 2019. The characteristics of all studies were described, including exposure metrics, exposure categories, and confounders. A survey among the principal investigators (PI) was carried out to assess their willingness to provide their original data. The statistical power of a pooling study was evaluated. We identified 15 articles published between 1997 and 2019. Studies differed in terms of outcome, study population, exposure assessment, and exposure metrics. Most studies assessed ELF-MF as average magnetic flux density per working day; however, exposure categories varied widely. The pattern of adjustment for confounders was heterogeneous between studies, with age, sex, and socioeconomic status being most frequent. Eight PI expressed their willingness to provide original data. A relative risk of ≥1.14 for ALS and occupational exposure to ELF-MF can be detected with a power of more than 80% in a pooled study. The pooling of original data is recommended and could contribute to a better understanding of ELF-MF in the etiology of ALS based on a large database and reduced heterogeneity due to a standardized analysis protocol with harmonized exposure metrics and exposure categories

Systematic review of the physiological and health-related effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure from wireless communication devices on children and adolescents in experimental and epidemiological human studies.

BackgroundFor more than 20 years, the potential health risks of radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF EMF) exposure from mobile communication devices on children and adolescents have been examined because they are considered sensitive population groups; however, it remains unclear whether such exposure poses any particular risk to them.ObjectivesThe aim of this review was to systematically analyze and evaluate the physiological and health-related effects of RF EMF exposures from wireless communication devices (mobile phones, cordless phones, Bluetooth, etc.) on children and adolescents.MethodsThis review was prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Methodological limitations in individual studies were assessed using the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) Risk-of-Bias Rating Tool for Human and Animal Studies.ResultsA total of 42 epidemiological and 11 experimental studies were eligible for this review. Most of the studies displayed several methodological weaknesses that limited the internal validity of the results. Due to a lack of consistency regarding the outcomes as well as the lack of scientific rigor in most reviewed studies, the body of evidence for the effects of RF EMF of mobile communication devices on subjective symptoms, cognition, and behavior in children and adolescents was low to inadequate. Evidence from the studies investigating early childhood development, brain activity, cancer, and physiological parameters was considered inadequate for drawing conclusions about possible effects.DiscussionOverall, the body of evidence allows no final conclusion on the question whether exposure to RF EMF from mobile communication devices poses a particular risk to children and adolescents. There has been rapid development in technologies generating RF EMF, which are extensively used by children and adolescents. Therefore, we strongly recommend high-quality systematic research on children and adolescents, since they are generally considered as sensitive age groups