OBJECTIVE: Previous studies reported associations of occupational electric and magnetic fields (MF) with neurodegenerative diseases (NDDs). Results differ between studies using proxy exposure based on occupational titles and estimated MF levels. We conducted a meta-analysis of occupational MF NDD, primarily Alzheimer disease (AD), and motor neuron diseases (MNDs) studies. METHODS: We identified 42 peer-reviewed publications and focused our analysis on study characteristics, exposure metrics, and publication bias. RESULTS: We found weak associations for occupational MF exposure proxies with AD and MND. Motor neuron disease risk was associated with occupational titles, whereas AD risk was associated with estimated MF levels. Results varied in study design, with dissimilar variation across diseases. CONCLUSIONS: Our results do not support MF as the explanation for observed associations between occupational titles and MND. Disease misclassification, particularly for AD, and imprecise exposure assessment affected most studies.
OBJECTIVE: Previous studies reported associations of occupational electric and magnetic fields (MF) with neurodegenerative diseases (NDDs). Results differ between studies using proxy exposure based on occupational titles and estimated MF levels. We conducted a meta-analysis of occupational MF NDD, primarily Alzheimer disease (AD), and motor neuron diseases (MNDs) studies. METHODS: We identified 42 peer-reviewed publications and focused our analysis on study characteristics, exposure metrics, and publication bias. RESULTS: We found weak associations for occupational MF exposure proxies with AD and MND. Motor neuron disease risk was associated with occupational titles, whereas AD risk was associated with estimated MF levels. Results varied in study design, with dissimilar variation across diseases. CONCLUSIONS: Our results do not support MF as the explanation for observed associations between occupational titles and MND. Disease misclassification, particularly for AD, and imprecise exposure assessment affected most studies.
Authors: John D Beard; Lawrence S Engel; David B Richardson; Marilie D Gammon; Coleen Baird; David M Umbach; Kelli D Allen; Catherine L Stanwyck; Jean Keller; Dale P Sandler; Silke Schmidt; Freya Kamel Journal: Environ Int Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 9.621
Authors: Marianne van der Mark; Roel Vermeulen; Peter C G Nijssen; Wim M Mulleners; Antonetta M G Sas; Teus van Laar; Hans Kromhout; Anke Huss Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2014-06-18 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Hari Krishna Raju Sagiraju; Sasa Živković; Anne C VanCott; Huned Patwa; David Gimeno Ruiz de Porras; Megan E Amuan; Mary Jo V Pugh Journal: Mil Med Date: 2020-03-02 Impact factor: 1.437
Authors: Martina P Liebl; Johannes Windschmitt; Anna S Besemer; Anne-Kathrin Schäfer; Helmut Reber; Christian Behl; Albrecht M Clement Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2015-02-26 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Ximena P Vergara; Heidi J Fischer; Michael Yost; Michael Silva; David A Lombardi; Leeka Kheifets Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2015-04-08 Impact factor: 3.390