The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields exposure on human self-reported symptoms: A protocol for a systematic review of human experimental studies

2022 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 984

This article reports a protocol for a planned systematic review of human experimental studies assessing effects of RF-EMF exposure (vs no or lower exposure) on symptoms, and assessing accuracy of perception of exposure in volunteers with and without IEI-EMF. …

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2022

Study typesystematic_review

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields exposure on human self-reported symptoms: A protocol for a systematic review of human experimental studies Xavier Bosch-Capblanch, Ekpereonne Esu, Stefan Dongus, Chioma Moses Oringanje, Hamed Jalilian, John Eyers, Gunnhild Oftedal, Martin Meremikwu, Martin Röösli. The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields exposure on human self-reported symptoms: A protocol for a systematic review of human experimental studies. Environment International. 158, 2022, 106953. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106953. Abstract Background The technological applications of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) have been steadily increasing since the 1950s across multiple sectors exposing large proportions of the population. This fact has raised concerns related to the potential consequences to people’s health. The World Health Organization (WHO) is assessing the potential health effects of exposure to RF-EMF and has carried out an international survey amongst experts, who have identified six priority topics to be further addressed through systematic reviews, whereof the effects on symptoms is one of them. We report here the systematic review protocol of experimental studies in humans assessing the effects of RF-EMF on symptoms. Objective Our objectives are to assess the effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (compared to no or lower exposure levels) on symptoms in human subjects. We will also assess the accuracy of perception of presence of exposure in volunteers with and without idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF). Eligibility criteria We will search relevant literature sources (e.g. the Web of Science, Medline, Embase, Epistemonikos) for randomized trials (comparing at least two arms) and randomised crossover trials of RF-EMF exposure that have assessed the effects on symptoms. We will also include studies that have measured the accuracy of the perception of the presence or absence of exposure. We will include studies in any language. Study appraisal and synthesis Studies will be assessed against inclusion criteria by two independent reviewers. Data on study characteristics, participants, exposure, comparators and effects will be extracted using a specific template for this review, by two independent reviewers. Discrepancies will be solved by consensus. Risk of bias (ROB) will be assessed using the ROB Rating Tool for Human and Animal Studies and the level of confidence in the evidence of the exposure-outcome relations will be assessed using the GRADE approach. For the perception studies, we will use adapted versions of the ROB tool and GRADE assessment. Where appropriate, data will be combined using meta-analytical techniques. Open access paper: sciencedirect.com

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 typesystematic_review

Effect directionunclear

PopulationHuman volunteers/subjects, including volunteers with and without idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF)

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureRF

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Outcomes measured

Self-reported symptoms
Accuracy of perception of presence/absence of RF-EMF exposure

Limitations

Protocol paper; no study results reported
Exposure parameters (e.g., frequency, SAR, duration) not specified in the abstract

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "systematic_review",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": null,
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Human volunteers/subjects, including volunteers with and without idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF)",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Self-reported symptoms",
    "Accuracy of perception of presence/absence of RF-EMF exposure"
  ],
  "main_findings": "This article reports a protocol for a planned systematic review of human experimental studies assessing effects of RF-EMF exposure (vs no or lower exposure) on symptoms, and assessing accuracy of perception of exposure in volunteers with and without IEI-EMF. No results are reported in the abstract.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Protocol paper; no study results reported",
    "Exposure parameters (e.g., frequency, SAR, duration) not specified in the abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "radiofrequency electromagnetic fields",
    "RF-EMF",
    "self-reported symptoms",
    "human experimental studies",
    "randomized trials",
    "randomised crossover trials",
    "systematic review protocol",
    "IEI-EMF",
    "perception of exposure",
    "WHO priority topics",
    "risk of bias",
    "GRADE"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.6,
      "reason": "Mentions WHO assessment and WHO-identified priority topics for systematic reviews on RF-EMF health effects."
    }
  ]
}

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: 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106953
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library