Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2002
Testicular cancer and electromagnetic fields (EMF) in the workplace: results of a population-based case-control study in Germany.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Baumgardt-Elms Cornelia, Ahrens Wolfgang, Bromen Katja, Boikat Ute, Stang Andreas, Jahn Ingeborg, Stegmaier Christa, Jöckel Karl-Heinz
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: In a population-based case-control study, we examined the association of testicular cancer and electromagnetic fields (EMF) in the workplace.
METHODS: Incident cases (n = 269) were recruited between 1995 and 1997. A total of 797 controls matched on age and region were randomly selected from mandatory registries of residents. EMF exposure was assessed for five categories in standardized face-to-face interviews using closed questions. For each exposure category, odds ratios (OR) were calculated, stratified by age and region, and in a more complex model weighted by duration and distance using conditional logistic regression. Subgroup analyses were conducted for seminoma and non-seminoma and for blue- and white-collar workers. Additionally, potential radar exposure was individually assessed by experts based on all available information including free text.
RESULTS: There was no excess risk for cases who reported to have ever worked near the following: radar units (OR = 1.0; 95% CI = 0.60-1.75); radiofrequency emitters (OR = 0.9; 95% CI = 0.60-1.24); electrical machines (OR = 1.0; 95% CI = 0.72-1.33): high-voltage lines or high-voltage electrical transmission installations (OR = 0.7; 95% CI = 0.38-1.18); or visual display units or complex electrical environments (OR = 0.9; 95% CI = 0.67-1.21). The results for the weighted exposure and subgroup analyses did not differ substantially. For radar exposure as assessed by the experts, the OR was 0.4 (95% CI = 0.13-1.16).
CONCLUSIONS: EMF exposure in the workplace does not seem to be a relevant risk factor for testicular cancer in our study.
METHODS: Incident cases (n = 269) were recruited between 1995 and 1997. A total of 797 controls matched on age and region were randomly selected from mandatory registries of residents. EMF exposure was assessed for five categories in standardized face-to-face interviews using closed questions. For each exposure category, odds ratios (OR) were calculated, stratified by age and region, and in a more complex model weighted by duration and distance using conditional logistic regression. Subgroup analyses were conducted for seminoma and non-seminoma and for blue- and white-collar workers. Additionally, potential radar exposure was individually assessed by experts based on all available information including free text.
RESULTS: There was no excess risk for cases who reported to have ever worked near the following: radar units (OR = 1.0; 95% CI = 0.60-1.75); radiofrequency emitters (OR = 0.9; 95% CI = 0.60-1.24); electrical machines (OR = 1.0; 95% CI = 0.72-1.33): high-voltage lines or high-voltage electrical transmission installations (OR = 0.7; 95% CI = 0.38-1.18); or visual display units or complex electrical environments (OR = 0.9; 95% CI = 0.67-1.21). The results for the weighted exposure and subgroup analyses did not differ substantially. For radar exposure as assessed by the experts, the OR was 0.4 (95% CI = 0.13-1.16).
CONCLUSIONS: EMF exposure in the workplace does not seem to be a relevant risk factor for testicular cancer in our study.