Table 5 Comparison of the odds ratios for association between childhood leukaemia and distance to closest overhead 200 + kV power line with and without adjustment for specific confounders

From: Proximity to overhead power lines and childhood leukaemia: an international pooled analysis

Confounder model

≥ 300 m

150 to < 300 m

50 to < 150 m

< 50 m

Ecological SES—studies 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11

  Not adjusteda

1.00 (reference)

1.01 (0.87–1.18)

0.90 (0.72–1.12)

1.28 (0.85–1.93)

  Adjustedb

1.00 (reference)

1.02 (0.87–1.18)

0.90 (0.72–1.12)

1.28 (0.85–1.93)

Individual SES—studies 1, 5, 6, 7, 11

  Not adjusteda

1.00 (reference)

0.83 (0.63–1.10)

1.09 (0.77–1.54)

1.49 (0.85–2.59)

  Adjustedb

1.00 (reference)

0.83 (0.63–1.10)

1.09 (0.77–1.55)

1.48 (0.85–2.58)

Mobility—studies 1, 5, 6, 7, 9

  Not adjusteda

1.00 (reference)

0.90 (0.43–1.90)

1.84 (1.00–3.38)

2.05 (0.78–5.36)

  Adjustedb

1.00 (reference)

0.87 (0.41–1.86)

1.72 (0.93–3.20)

2.09 (0.79–5.51)

Dwelling type—studies 1, 6, 7, 11

  Not adjusteda

1.00 (reference)

0.95 (0.51–1.79)

1.64 (1.04–2.58)

2.59 (1.35–4.99)

  Adjustedb

1.00 (reference)

0.96 (0.51–1.81)

1.66 (1.05–2.61)

2.62 (1.36–5.03)

Traffic—studies 3, 4, 7, 8

  Not adjusteda

1.00 (reference)

0.99 (0.77–1.26)

1.02 (0.73–1.42)

1.78 (1.06–2.98)

 Adjustedb

1.00 (reference)

0.98 (0.77–1.26)

1.01 (0.72–1.41)

1.77 (1.05–2.97)

Urban setting—studies 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10

  Not adjusteda

1.00 (reference)

1.02 (0.87–1.21)

1.01 (0.80–1.28)

1.28 (0.81–2.02)

 Adjustedb

1.00 (reference)

1.02 (0.87–1.21)

1.01 (0.80–1.28)

1.28 (0.81–2.02)

Calculated fields—studies 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11

  Not adjusteda

1.00 (reference)

0.95 (0.79–1.13)

0.98 (0.75–1.26)

1.16 (0.71–1.91)

  Adjustedb

1.00 (reference)

0.95 (0.79–1.13)

1.00 (0.75–1.32)

1.23 (0.67–2.26)

Measured or calculated fields—studies 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11

 Not adjusteda

 1.00 (reference)

0.95 (0.79–1.14)

0.97 (0.75–1.24)

1.32 (0.81–2.13)

  Adjustedb

1.00 (reference)

0.95 (0.79–1.14)

0.98 (0.75–1.28)

1.47 (0.83–2.60)

  1. SES socioeconomic status
  2. Studies: 1, Brazil; 2, Denmark; 3, France; 4, Italy1; 5, Italy2; 6, Norway; 7, Sweden; 8, Switzerland; 9, Tasmania; 10, United Kingdom; 11, United States.
  3. aAnalyses were conducted using a random intercept logistic regression model, adjusting for age, sex and SES (except in SES models) in subjects who did not have missing values for the covariate of interest.
  4. bAnalyses were conducted using a random intercept logistic regression model, adjusting for age, sex, SES and the covariate of interest