RF Safe

Effects of man-made electromagnetic fields on heart rate variability parameters of general public: a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies

Reviews on environmental health · 2023 · Mixed · Low evidence

← Research stream
MixedLow evidencePaper 462

Across 15 eligible original studies, meta-analysis showed decreases in SDNN (ES=-0.227, p=0.006), SDANN (ES=-0.526, p=0.03), and PNN50 (ES=-0.287). No significant differences were found for LF (p=0.714), HF (p=0.556), or LF/HF (p=0.566).

Study snapshot

PublicationReviews on environmental health · 2023
Study typemeta_analysis
Reported directionMixed
Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Effects of man-made electromagnetic fields on heart rate variability parameters of general public: a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies Mansourian M, Marateb H, Nouri R, Mansourian M. Effects of man-made electromagnetic fields on heart rate variability parameters of general public: a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies. Rev Environ Health. 2023 May 18. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2022-0191. Abstract Objectives: The effects of man-made electromagnetic fields (EMFs) on the cardiovascular system have been investigated in many studies. In this regard, the cardiac autonomic nervous system (ANS) activity due to EMFs exposure, assessed by heart rate variability (HRV), was targeted in some studies. The studies investigating the relationship between EMFs and HRV have yielded conflicting results. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the data's consistency and identify the association between EMFs and HRV measures. Content: Published literature from four electronic databases, including Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane, were retrieved and screened. Initially, 1601 articles were retrieved. After the screening, 15 original studies were eligible to be included in the meta-analysis. The studies evaluated the association between EMFs and SDNN (standard deviation of NN intervals), SDANN (Standard deviation of the average NN intervals for each 5 min segment of a 24 h HRV recording), and PNN50 (percentage of successive RR intervals that differ by more than 50 ms). Summary: There was a decrease in SDNN (ES=-0.227 [-0.389, -0.065], p=0.006), SDANN (ES=-0.526 [-1.001, - 0.05], p=0.03) and PNN50 (ES=-0.287 [-0.549, -0.024]). However, there was no significant difference in LF (ES=0.061 (-0.267, 0.39), p=0.714) and HF (ES=-0.134 (0.581, 0.312), p=0.556). In addition, a significant difference was not observed in LF/HF (ES=0.079 (-0.191, 0.348), p=0.566). Outlook: Our meta-analysis suggests that exposure to the environmental artificial EMFs could significantly correlate with SDNN, SDANN, and PNN50 indices. Therefore, lifestyle modification is essential in using the devices that emit EMs, such as cell phones, to decrease some signs and symptoms due to EMFs' effect on HRV. Excerpts Nevertheless, the possible mechanism of EMFs’ effect on the cardiovascular system (slowing of heart rate) is speculated to be due to the interaction of these fields with the control mechanisms for blood pressure and thermoregulation [84]. However, although the exact underlying mechanism of the association between EMFs exposure and HRV is unclear, the results of the present meta-analysis and previous studies could be advisable to suggest that excessive use of cell phones should be avoided to decrease some signs and symptoms caused by HRV change, as a result of EMFs exposure. More attention should also be paid to the young people frequently exposed to EMFs due to using cell phones for a long time. According to our results, EMF exposure might considerably affect the autonomic balance and provoke adverse health effects. Therefore, lifestyle modifications could be effective in decreasing the incidence of cardiovascular diseases. Some limitations exist in our meta-analysis. First, the few case-control studies for each HRV indices affect our meta-analysis to control before-and-after studies. Second, there were not enough studies or adequate information in the results of some studies for other HRV measurements; these HRV indices were not analyzed. Third, in addition to a small number of studies in some groups, the groups participating in the study may use other communication devices that emit EMF or have different times of telephone conversations per day; more attention must be paid with caution while interpreting the findings. Finally, in our meta-analysis, studies that evaluated HRV in the electrohypersensitive subjects were not included, which assessment of these studies is highly recommended. Conclusions Our data indicated that EMF exposure could influence cardiac sympathetic and parasympathetic indexes such as SDNN. Our findings could support the hypothesis that exposure to RF EMFs emitted by RF fields like cell phones may cause chronic stress and various psychiatric disorders by influencing some time domain HRV indexes. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typemeta_analysis
Effect directionmixed
Populationgeneral public
Sample sizeNot supplied
ExposureNot supplied
Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Across 15 eligible original studies, meta-analysis showed decreases in SDNN (ES=-0.227, p=0.006), SDANN (ES=-0.526, p=0.03), and PNN50 (ES=-0.287). No significant differences were found for LF (p=0.714), HF (p=0.556), or LF/HF (p=0.566).

Outcomes measured

  • Heart rate variability (HRV)
  • SDNN
  • SDANN
  • PNN50
  • LF
  • HF
  • LF/HF

Limitations

  • Few case-control studies for each HRV index, affecting ability to control before-and-after studies
  • Not enough studies/insufficient information for other HRV measurements; these indices were not analyzed
  • Small number of studies in some groups; participants may have used other EMF-emitting devices or had different phone conversation times, requiring caution in interpretation
  • Studies of electrohypersensitive subjects were not included
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "meta_analysis",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "environmental artificial EMFs (devices such as cell phones)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "general public",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Heart rate variability (HRV)",
    "SDNN",
    "SDANN",
    "PNN50",
    "LF",
    "HF",
    "LF/HF"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Across 15 eligible original studies, meta-analysis showed decreases in SDNN (ES=-0.227, p=0.006), SDANN (ES=-0.526, p=0.03), and PNN50 (ES=-0.287). No significant differences were found for LF (p=0.714), HF (p=0.556), or LF/HF (p=0.566).",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Few case-control studies for each HRV index, affecting ability to control before-and-after studies",
    "Not enough studies/insufficient information for other HRV measurements; these indices were not analyzed",
    "Small number of studies in some groups; participants may have used other EMF-emitting devices or had different phone conversation times, requiring caution in interpretation",
    "Studies of electrohypersensitive subjects were not included"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "electromagnetic fields",
    "EMF",
    "artificial EMFs",
    "cell phones",
    "RF",
    "heart rate variability",
    "HRV",
    "autonomic nervous system",
    "SDNN",
    "SDANN",
    "PNN50",
    "LF",
    "HF",
    "LF/HF",
    "systematic review",
    "meta-analysis"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.2,
      "reason": "Systematic review/meta-analysis of health effects from man-made EMF exposure; relevant to guideline and risk-evaluation context."
    }
  ]
}
AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1515/reveh-2022-0191
PubMed: 37195230

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library