4.6 Review

Epidemiological evidence that physical activity is not a risk factor for ALS

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 29, 期 7, 页码 459-475

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10654-014-9923-2

关键词

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; Motor neuron disease; Physical activity; Sports; American football; Soccer players

资金

  1. Regional Council of Limousin Region and Inserm

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To elucidate whether physical activity (PA) and sport increase the risk of developing amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), a literature review of epidemiological studies was conducted according to the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. Six databases (Pubmed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, IngentaConnect, Refdoc and the Cochrane database) were searched to April 2014. Experts were asked to identify studies in press. Studies of interest were examined for their level of evidence and synthetized using Armon's classification for exogenous risk factors for ALS. Of 37 epidemiological works included in the review, two (5.5 %) provided class I evidence, and five (13.5 %) class II. Others offered evidence of class III (n = 8, 21.6 %), IV (n = 16, 43.2 %) and V (n = 6, 16.2 %). Results were stratified according to type of exposure: (1) PA related to sport and work (n = 14), (2) soccer and American football (n = 9), (3) occupation (n = 12), (4) proxies of PA (n = 2). Among articles which considered PA related to sport and work, two class I studies and one class II study concluded that PA is not a risk factor for ALS. This evidence establishes (level A) that PA is not a risk factor for ALS. As regards occupational related activity a level of evidence of U was obtained (it is unknown whether the professional category physical worker is a risk factor for ALS). Football/soccer may be considered as a possible risk factor for ALS (level C) and there is a need for further research taking into account the numerous confounding factors that may arise in this field.

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

4.6
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