We conducted a meta-analysis of seventeen epidemiological studies on the association between occupational exposure to ELF-EMF and the risk of ALS. The results revealed a slight but significant increase in the risk of ALS among ELF-EMF-related occupations in pooled studies, job-title analysis and clinically diagnosed ALS studies, but not in job-exposure matrix studies and studies of ALS based on the death certificate. Moderate statistical heterogeneity across studies was found in all analyses.
Studies based on job-title showed that electrical occupations increased the risk of ALS, but the result from studies estimating exposure levels of ELF-EMF by the job-exposure matrix suggested that ELF-EMF was not significantly associated with ALS risk. Persons in electrical occupations may have a greater potential for electrical shocks. Electrical shocks or other unidentified variables associated with electrical occupations, rather than magnetic-field exposure, may distort real association between ELF-EMF and ALS risk
[12]. If electrical shocks account for the increased risk in electrical occupations, then the highest risk should be expected among electricians; however, current studies do not indicate this association
[13]. On the other hand, it has been suggested that exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls may be associated with ALS, and employees in the electric industries may historically have been exposed to these agents in insulating fluids
[5],
[32]. The possible confounders of co-exposures to these agents should be excluded in future studies.
A significant association was found in the studies of clinically diagnosed ALS, but not in those based on the death certificate. Actually, the analyses of clinically diagnosed ALS studies included four job-title studies
[7],
[8],
[30],
[31] and two job-exposure matrix studies
[10],
[33]. However, the analyses of studies of ALS based on the death certificate comprised eight job-title studies
[12],
[13],
[15],
[16],
[26],
[32],
[34],
[35] and eight job-exposure matrix studies
[11],
[12],
[13],
[14],
[16],
[32],
[35],
[36]. Thus, the significant association in clinically diagnosed ALS studies may derive from job-title studies.
However, epidemiological studies have several weaknesses, mostly in relation to case ascertainment and controls selection in case-control studies, exposure assessment, and control of confounders. Incomplete ascertainment of cases decrease the statistical power of case-control studies. In this meta-analysis, we found a higher pooled risk by pooling the studies based on clinical examination when compared to that based on death certificates, and observed substantial heterogeneity when the results from both approaches were compared (
P
=

0.026, Data not shown). Out of nine case-control studies, four selected cases based on the death certificate
[12],
[14],
[29],
[34], and five recruited cases from clinical patients
[7],
[8],
[30],
[31],
[33]. One source of variability is the possible misclassification of the disease, and another may relate to the case-finding period and time from the first exposure. ALS has a long latency/survival period
[37], and there is a time lag between exposure to ELF-EMF and the manifestation of this disease, so the information bias is inevitable in some studies. Different strategies were applied for control selection in the nine case-control studies: five population-based studies and four from death certificates. Furthermore, the inclusion and exclusion criteria for controls were substantially different across studies. Also, the methods of estimating exposure levels to EMF were various across studies; and a potential confounding effect would be introduced in individual studies. These sources of variation could explain the moderate heterogeneity in the pooled analysis of the case-control studies.
Twelve studies used “job title” to characterize exposure, whereas ten assessed the levels of exposure to ELF-EMF by the job-exposure matrix. In studies using job title, occupations were grouped into “electrical” and “non-electrical” categories, but the criteria for defining “electrical occupation” varied across studies
[12],
[13],
[15],
[16],
[26],
[32],
[34],
[35]. Cutoff points of exposure were different across studies using job-exposure matrix
[11],
[12],
[13],
[14],
[16],
[32],
[35],
[36]. However, different definition of exposure to ELF-EMF across studies may introduce various effects on ALS. These variations may contribute to the moderate heterogeneity in all analyses.
Although potential confounders such as age and sex were controlled in most of these studies, other confounders might have derived from unknown and unmeasured variables. One potential confounding factor could be ELF-EMF exposure from non-occupational sources. ELF-EMF are generated by many sources, including power lines, electric transportation systems, and electrical appliances. These non-occupational sources could result in the same level of exposure as occupational sources
[38]. Other potential confounding factors may be introduced in epidemiological studies, such as electrical shocks, trauma, and exposure to organic solvents, metals, and agricultural chemicals
[39],
[40]. People engaged in electric utility occupations frequently experienced electrical shocks, which was one of ALS risk factors. However, it is difficult to assess the separate effects of ELF-EMF exposure and electrical shocks on the risk of ALS
[9].
In addition to occupational ELF-EMF exposure, public exposure to environmental ELF-EMF has increased rapidly in the last a few decades. Future studies should examine the association between public ELF-EMF exposure level and ALS incidence to clarify the relation between ELF-EMF exposure and ALS risk.
Biological mechanisms
Biological mechanisms have been explored to clarify the association between ELF-EMF exposure and ALS risk. Some laboratory studies indicated that
in vitro exposure to ELF-EMF produces larger quantities of cellular reactive oxygen species
[41],
[42] and
in vivo ELF-EMF exposure induces oxidative stress and impairs antioxidant status in rats
[43],
[44],
[45]. Actually, the oxidative stress plays a key role in the development of ALS although the pathogenic processes involved in ALS are complex
[46]. Some studies demonstrated that EMF cause DNA strand breaks in brain cells, resulting in apoptosis and necrosis, which may be involved in the relationship between ELF-EMF exposure and ALS risk
[47]. However, no study shows a connection between ELF-EMF exposure, oxidative stress/DNA damage in brain cells and ALS development. Animal models were used to assess the possible effects of ELF-EMF on the development of ALS, but the results did not provide the evidence of such a link
[20]. Future laboratory studies are required to systemically investigate the possible role of ELF-EMF on the development of ALS under different ELF-EMF exposure conditions.