Review of quality of publications & meta-analysis of genetic damage in mammalian cells exposed to non- ionizing radiofrequency fields

2018 · Mixed · Low evidence

← Research stream

MixedLow evidencePaper 1982

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2018

Study typemeta_analysis

Reported directionMixed

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Review of quality of publications & meta-analysis of genetic damage in mammalian cells exposed to non- ionizing radiofrequency fields Vijayalaxmi, Prihoda TJ. Comprehensive review of quality of publications and meta-analysis of genetic damage in mammalian cells exposed to non-ionizing radiofrequency fields. Radiat Res. 2018 Oct 19. doi: 10.1667/RR15117.1. Abstract There have been numerous published studies reporting on the extent of genetic damage observed in animal and human cells exposed in vitro and in vivo to non-ionizing radiofrequency fields (RF, electromagnetic waves that carry energy as they propagate in air and dense media). Overall, the data are inconsistent; while some studies have suggested significantly increased damage in cells exposed to RF energy compared to unexposed and/or sham-exposed control cells, others have not. Several variables in exposure conditions used in the experiments might have contributed to the controversy. In this comprehensive review, four specific quality control measures were used to determine the quality of 225 published studies in animal and human cells exposed in vitro and in vivo to RF energy, and the results from 2,160 tests with different sample sizes were analyzed. The four specific quality control measures were as follows: 1. "Blind" collection/analysis of the data to eliminate individual/observer "bias"; 2. Adequate description of "dosimetry" for independent replication/confirmation; 3. Inclusion of "positive controls" to confirm the outcomes; and 4. Inclusion of "sham-exposed controls" which are more appropriate to compare the data with those in RF exposure conditions. In addition, meta-analysis of the genetic damage in cells exposed to RF energy and control cells, thus far available in the RF literature database, was performed to obtain the "d" values, i.e., standardized mean difference between these two types of cells or the effect size. The relationship between d values and the above-mentioned quality control measures was ascertained. In addition, the correlation between the quality control measures and the conclusions reported in the publications (no significant difference between the cells exposed to RF energy and control cells; increased damage in former cells compared to the latter; increased, no significant difference and decreased damage in cells exposed to RF energy in the same experiment; or decreased damage in cells exposed to RF energy) was examined. The overall conclusions were as follows: 1. When all four quality control measures were mentioned in the publication, the d values were smaller compared to those when one or more quality control measures were not mentioned in the investigation; 2. Based on the inclusion of quality control measures, the weighted outcome in cells exposed to RF energy (d values) indicated a very small effect, if any; 3. The number of published studies reporting no significant difference in genetic damage of cells exposed to RF energy, compared to that of control cells, increased with increased number of quality control measures employed in investigations; 4. The number of published studies reporting increased genetic damage in cells exposed to RF energy decreased with increased number of quality control measures; and 5. There was a "bias" towards the publications reporting increased genetic damage in cells exposed to RF energy even with very small sample size. Overall, the results from this study underscore the importance of including quality control measures in investigations so that the resulting data are useful, nationally and internationally, in evaluating "potential" health risks from exposure to RF energy. 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

PopulationAnimal and human cells (in vitro and in vivo studies)

Sample size225

ExposureRF

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

A review of 225 published studies (2,160 tests) found that effect sizes (d values) for genetic damage were smaller when all four quality control measures were reported. The weighted outcome suggested a very small effect, if any, of RF exposure on genetic damage, and studies reporting increased genetic damage decreased as more quality control measures were employed; the authors also noted a bias toward publications reporting increased damage with very small sample sizes.

Outcomes measured

Genetic damage (in mammalian/animal and human cells)
Study quality indicators (blinding, dosimetry description, positive controls, sham-exposed controls)
Standardized mean difference (d values/effect size)

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "meta_analysis",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": null,
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Animal and human cells (in vitro and in vivo studies)",
  "sample_size": 225,
  "outcomes": [
    "Genetic damage (in mammalian/animal and human cells)",
    "Study quality indicators (blinding, dosimetry description, positive controls, sham-exposed controls)",
    "Standardized mean difference (d values/effect size)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "A review of 225 published studies (2,160 tests) found that effect sizes (d values) for genetic damage were smaller when all four quality control measures were reported. The weighted outcome suggested a very small effect, if any, of RF exposure on genetic damage, and studies reporting increased genetic damage decreased as more quality control measures were employed; the authors also noted a bias toward publications reporting increased damage with very small sample sizes.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "radiofrequency",
    "RF",
    "non-ionizing radiation",
    "genetic damage",
    "mammalian cells",
    "in vitro",
    "in vivo",
    "meta-analysis",
    "quality control",
    "dosimetry",
    "blinding",
    "sham controls",
    "publication bias"
  ],
  "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: 10.1667/rr15117.1
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library