Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a critical review of explanatory hypotheses

2020 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 1522

The review identifies three main explanatory hypotheses for EHS (electromagnetic, cognitive/nocebo, and attributive/coping) and assesses their strengths and limitations; it concludes that no single hypothesis is fully satisfying and suggests research avenues …

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2020

Study typereview

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a critical review of explanatory hypotheses Dieudonné M. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a critical review of explanatory hypotheses. Environ Health. 2020 May 6;19(1):48. doi: 10.1186/s12940-020-00602-0. Abstract BACKGROUND: Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is a condition defined by the attribution of non-specific symptoms to electromagnetic fields (EMF) of anthropogenic origin. Despite its repercussions on the lives of its sufferers, and its potential to become a significant public health issue, it remains of a contested nature. Different hypotheses have been proposed to explain the origin of symptoms experienced by self-declared EHS persons, which this article aims to review. METHODS: As EHS is a multi-dimensional problem, and its explanatory hypotheses have far-reaching implications, a broad view was adopted, not restricted to EHS literature but encompassing all relevant bodies of research on related topics. This could only be achieved through a narrative approach. Two strategies were used to identify pertinent references. Concerning EHS, a complete bibliography was extracted from a 2018 report from the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety and updated with more recent studies. Concerning related topics, the appropriate databases were searched. Systematic reviews and expert reports were favored when available. FINDINGS: Three main explanatory hypotheses appear in the literature: (1) the electromagnetic hypothesis, attributing EHS to EMF exposure; (2) the cognitive hypothesis, assuming that EHS results from false beliefs in EMF harmfulness, promoting nocebo responses to perceived EMF exposure; (3) the attributive hypothesis, conceiving EHS as a coping strategy for pre-existing conditions. These hypotheses are successively assessed, considering both their strengths and limitations, by comparing their theoretical, experimental, and ecological value. CONCLUSION: No hypothesis proves totally satisfying. Avenues of research are suggested to help decide between them and reach a better understanding of EHS. Open access paper: 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 typereview

Effect directionunclear

PopulationSelf-declared electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) persons (general)

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureNot supplied

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Outcomes measured

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) symptoms attribution and explanatory hypotheses (electromagnetic, cognitive/nocebo, attributive/coping)

Limitations

Narrative (non-systematic) review approach
Broad scope across multiple related research bodies; specific inclusion/exclusion criteria not detailed in abstract
No quantitative synthesis reported in abstract

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "review",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "anthropogenic EMF (general)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Self-declared electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) persons (general)",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) symptoms attribution and explanatory hypotheses (electromagnetic, cognitive/nocebo, attributive/coping)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "The review identifies three main explanatory hypotheses for EHS (electromagnetic, cognitive/nocebo, and attributive/coping) and assesses their strengths and limitations; it concludes that no single hypothesis is fully satisfying and suggests research avenues to better discriminate between them.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Narrative (non-systematic) review approach",
    "Broad scope across multiple related research bodies; specific inclusion/exclusion criteria not detailed in abstract",
    "No quantitative synthesis reported in abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "electromagnetic hypersensitivity",
    "EHS",
    "EMF",
    "nocebo",
    "cognitive hypothesis",
    "attribution",
    "coping strategy",
    "review"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": []
}

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: 10.1186/s12940-020-00602-0
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library