Analysis of mobile phone use among young patients with brain tumors in Japan

2017 · No effect · Low evidence

← Research stream
No effectLow evidencePaper 1325

Among 82 young patients with brain tumors, 16 owned a mobile phone 1 year before diagnosis and 66 did not. Age-adjusted standardized ownership ratios versus general-population surveys were 0.83 (95% CI: 0.56–1.22), 0.51 (95% CI: 0.24–1.04), and 0.75 (95% CI: …

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2017
Study typeother
Reported directionNo effect
Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Analysis of mobile phone use among young patients with brain tumors in Japan Sato Y, Kojimahara N, Yamaguchi N. Analysis of mobile phone use among young patients with brain tumors in Japan. Bioelectromagnetics. 2017 Mar 24. doi: 10.1002/bem.22047. Abstract The purpose of this study was to clarify ownership and usage of mobile phones among young patients with brain tumors in Japan. The subjects of this study were patients with brain tumors diagnosed between 2006 and 2010 who were between the ages of 6 and 18 years. The target population for the analysis was 82 patients. Patients were divided into two groups: 16 patients who were mobile phone owners 1 year before diagnosis, and 66 patients who did not own mobile phones (non-owners). Using data on the mobile phone ownership rate obtained from three general-population surveys, we calculated the expected number of mobile phone owners. The three age-adjusted standardized ownership ratios were 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56-1.22), 0.51 (95% CI: 0.24-1.04), and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.42-1.32). The mobile phone ownership prevalence among the young Japanese patients with brain tumors in the current study does not differ from available estimates for the general population of corresponding age. However, since the use of mobile phones among children is increasing annually, investigations into the health effects of mobile phone use among children should continue. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Note: This study has some major methodologic limitations including a small sample size. The study did not examine other sources of exposure to RF radiation (e.g., cordless phone use).

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 typeother
Effect directionno_effect
PopulationPatients in Japan aged 6–18 years with brain tumors diagnosed between 2006 and 2010
Sample size82
ExposureRF · Ownership 1 year before diagnosis
Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Among 82 young patients with brain tumors, 16 owned a mobile phone 1 year before diagnosis and 66 did not. Age-adjusted standardized ownership ratios versus general-population surveys were 0.83 (95% CI: 0.56–1.22), 0.51 (95% CI: 0.24–1.04), and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.42–1.32), and the authors report ownership prevalence did not differ from available general-population estimates.

Outcomes measured

  • Mobile phone ownership prevalence among young brain tumor patients compared with general-population estimates (standardized ownership ratios)

Limitations

  • Small sample size (82 total; 16 owners).
  • Exposure metric limited to phone ownership 1 year before diagnosis; usage intensity not detailed in the abstract.
  • Comparison relies on external general-population surveys rather than an internal control group.
  • Did not examine other RF exposure sources (e.g., cordless phone use).
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "publication_year": null,
  "study_type": "other",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "Ownership 1 year before diagnosis"
  },
  "population": "Patients in Japan aged 6–18 years with brain tumors diagnosed between 2006 and 2010",
  "sample_size": 82,
  "outcomes": [
    "Mobile phone ownership prevalence among young brain tumor patients compared with general-population estimates (standardized ownership ratios)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Among 82 young patients with brain tumors, 16 owned a mobile phone 1 year before diagnosis and 66 did not. Age-adjusted standardized ownership ratios versus general-population surveys were 0.83 (95% CI: 0.56–1.22), 0.51 (95% CI: 0.24–1.04), and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.42–1.32), and the authors report ownership prevalence did not differ from available general-population estimates.",
  "effect_direction": "no_effect",
  "limitations": [
    "Small sample size (82 total; 16 owners).",
    "Exposure metric limited to phone ownership 1 year before diagnosis; usage intensity not detailed in the abstract.",
    "Comparison relies on external general-population surveys rather than an internal control group.",
    "Did not examine other RF exposure sources (e.g., cordless phone use)."
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "stance": "neutral",
  "stance_confidence": 0.62,
  "summary": "This study described mobile phone ownership among 82 Japanese patients aged 6–18 years with brain tumors diagnosed between 2006 and 2010. Sixteen patients owned a mobile phone 1 year before diagnosis, and standardized ownership ratios compared with general-population surveys ranged from 0.51 to 0.83 with confidence intervals including 1. The authors report ownership prevalence did not differ from general-population estimates, while noting the need for continued research as children’s phone use increases.",
  "key_points": [
    "The study assessed mobile phone ownership and use patterns among young brain tumor patients in Japan.",
    "Participants were 82 patients aged 6–18 years diagnosed with brain tumors between 2006 and 2010.",
    "Sixteen patients were mobile phone owners 1 year before diagnosis and 66 were non-owners.",
    "Expected numbers of owners were derived from three general-population surveys to compute standardized ownership ratios.",
    "Standardized ownership ratios (0.51–0.83) had confidence intervals that included 1, and the authors report no difference from general-population estimates.",
    "The abstract notes major methodological limitations, including small sample size and limited exposure assessment.",
    "The authors conclude that research on children’s mobile phone use and health effects should continue as use increases."
  ],
  "categories": [
    "Epidemiology",
    "Cancer",
    "Children & Adolescents",
    "Mobile & Wireless"
  ],
  "tags": [
    "Brain Tumors",
    "Children",
    "Adolescents",
    "Mobile Phone Ownership",
    "Radiofrequency Exposure",
    "Japan",
    "Standardized Ownership Ratio",
    "Case Series"
  ],
  "keywords": [
    "brain tumors",
    "children",
    "adolescents",
    "mobile phone",
    "ownership",
    "Japan",
    "radiofrequency",
    "standardized ownership ratio"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "cell-phones",
      "weight": 0.95,
      "reason": "Study focuses on mobile phone ownership/use among young brain tumor patients."
    }
  ],
  "social": {
    "tweet": "Japan study of 82 brain tumor patients (ages 6–18) found mobile phone ownership 1 year before diagnosis was similar to general-population estimates; authors note small sample and limited exposure assessment.",
    "facebook": "A Japanese study examined mobile phone ownership among 82 young patients with brain tumors and reported ownership prevalence similar to general-population estimates, while highlighting methodological limits and the need for continued research as children’s phone use rises.",
    "linkedin": "Bioelectromagnetics (2017): Analysis of mobile phone ownership among 82 Japanese brain tumor patients aged 6–18 found standardized ownership ratios vs general-population surveys that did not indicate a difference; limitations include small sample size and limited exposure characterization."
  }
}
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: 10.1002/bem.22047
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library