4.7 Article

Pooled analysis of recent studies on magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 103, 期 7, 页码 1128-1135

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605838

关键词

magnetic fields; childhood leukaemia; pooled analysis; meta-analysis

类别

资金

  1. CHILDREN with LEUKAEMIA, a UK charity
  2. NIH NCI [CA016042]
  3. Brazilian Electricity Regulatory Agency [0390-041/2004 ANNEL]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Previous pooled analyses have reported an association between magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia. We present a pooled analysis based on primary data from studies on residential magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia published after 2000. METHODS: Seven studies with a total of 10 865 cases and 12 853 controls were included. The main analysis focused on 24-h magnetic field measurements or calculated fields in residences. RESULTS: In the combined results, risk increased with increase in exposure, but the estimates were imprecise. The odds ratios for exposure categories of 0.1-0.2 mu T, 0.2-0.3 mu T and >= 0.3 mu T, compared with <0.1 mu T, were 1.07 (95% Cl 0.81-1.41), 1.16 (0.69-1.93) and 1.44 (0.88-2.36), respectively. Without the most influential study from Brazil, the odds ratios increased somewhat. An increasing trend was also suggested by a nonparametric analysis conducted using a generalised additive model. CONCLUSIONS: Our results are in line with previous pooled analyses showing an association between magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia. Overall, the association is weaker in the most recently conducted studies, but these studies are small and lack methodological improvements needed to resolve the apparent association. We conclude that recent studies on magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia do not alter the previous assessment that magnetic fields are possibly carcinogenic. British Journal of Cancer (2010) 103, 1128-1135. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605838 www.bjcancer.com (c) 2010 Cancer Research UK

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据