Database of bio-effects from non-ionizing radiation

2018 · Mixed · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

MixedInsufficient evidencePaper 2076

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2018

Study typereview

Reported directionMixed

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

Database of bio-effects from non-ionizing radiation Leach V, Weller S, Redmayne M. A novel database of bio-effects from non-ionizing radiation. Rev Environ Health. 2018 Jun 6. pii: /j/reveh.ahead-of-print/reveh-2018-0017/reveh-2018-0017.xml. Abstract A significant amount of electromagnetic field/electromagnetic radiation (EMF/EMR) research is available that examines biological and disease associated endpoints. The quantity, variety and changing parameters in the available research can be challenging when undertaking a literature review, meta-analysis, preparing a study design, building reference lists or comparing findings between relevant scientific papers. The Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association (ORSAA) has created a comprehensive, non-biased, multi- categorized, searchable database of papers on non-ionizing EMF/EMR to help address these challenges. It is regularly added to, freely accessible online and designed to allow data to be easily retrieved, sorted and analyzed. This paper demonstrates the content and search flexibility of the ORSAA database. Demonstration searches are presented by Effect/No Effect; frequency-band/s; in vitro; in vivo; biological effects; study type; and funding source. As of September 15, 2017, the clear majority of 2653 papers captured in the database examine outcomes in the 300 MHz-3 GHz range. There are 3 times more biological "Effect" than "No Effect" papers; nearly a third of papers provide no funding statement; industry-funded studies more often than not find "No Effect", while institutional funding commonly reveal "Effects". Country of origin where the study is conducted/funded also appears to have a dramatic influence on the likely result outcome. The Oceania Radiofrequency Science Advisory Association The Oceania Radiofrequency Science Advisory Association (ORSAA) Database is a searchable database on peer-reviewed scientific studies and articles on bioeffect research of electromagnetic fields. The database is designed to enable detailed independent searches invaluable to researchers and scientists. It requires some training on how to use it most effectively. orsaa.org Discussion and Conclusions ORSAA's new database provides a highly flexible way of searching a wide, and increasing, range of the EMF literature. It can be used to search for papers according to frequency range, power, SAR, tested endpoints, reported outcomes and study type, amongst others. Furthermore, the data can be exported to create graphs to identify trends in research as well as biological effect outcomes based on frequency and/or exposure duration. Our method of selecting papers for inclusion is intended to minimize bias and we anticipate that the resulting library is representative of the spread of peer-reviewed papers being published. Nearly a third of the studies do not declare research funding in the papers so they are marked as funding source unknown in the ORSAA database. Maisch discusses this problem [5]. It may be that these are generally funded by the institution or department where the work was performed, but without a declaration the reader cannot know. Although we have not included NESS studies in the funding chart (Figure 2), it should be borne in mind that the choice of papers selected for reviews and meta-analyses may be related to the funding source and may ultimately affect the paper conclusions. ORSAA considers funding declarations are of critical importance to ensure transparency and to help identify potential biases. ORSAA also encourages all journals to insist on providing this, even when there is no specific funder to declare. Requiring full disclosure of income affiliations is vital, especially in the latter circumstance. Although animal studies cannot provide direct evidence of human biological effects, animal models can provide a strong indication of likely risks to humans. The ORSAA database can be used to enumerate and compare the many instances where both animal and human studies have found the same biological effect outcomes. Our demonstration tables also indicate that although there are studies that report no effect on the tested parameters, there are in many cases significantly more that do find an effect. Closer examination suggests that this inconsistency can be explained in large part by the lack of replication between studies. The evolving database cannot be used as a sole source of reference for a systematic review on any particular end-point, and can only reflect the status quo with reference to the included papers. However, it provides many benefits to the general public and researchers alike. 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 directionmixed

PopulationNot supplied

Sample size2653

ExposureNot supplied

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

The paper describes and demonstrates the ORSAA searchable database of peer-reviewed non-ionizing EMF/EMR bioeffects papers. As of Sept 15, 2017, most of the 2653 papers in the database examined outcomes in the 300 MHz–3 GHz range; the database contained about three times more papers categorized as reporting an "Effect" than "No Effect". Nearly one-third of papers had no funding statement; industry-funded studies were reported to more often find "No Effect," while institutionally funded studies commonly reported "Effects," and country of origin appeared to influence reported outcomes.

Outcomes measured

Database development/description for non-ionizing EMF/EMR bioeffects literature
Distribution of studies by frequency range (e.g., 300 MHz–3 GHz)
Reported study outcomes categorized as Effect vs No Effect
Associations between funding source and reported outcomes
Associations between country of origin and reported outcomes
Search and export functionality for literature retrieval/sorting/analysis

Limitations

The database cannot be used as a sole source of reference for a systematic review on a specific endpoint and reflects only the included papers/status quo.
Nearly a third of included studies do not declare funding, limiting interpretation of funding-related patterns.
Inconsistency between effect and no-effect findings may be influenced by lack of replication between studies.

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "review",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": null,
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": 2653,
  "outcomes": [
    "Database development/description for non-ionizing EMF/EMR bioeffects literature",
    "Distribution of studies by frequency range (e.g., 300 MHz–3 GHz)",
    "Reported study outcomes categorized as Effect vs No Effect",
    "Associations between funding source and reported outcomes",
    "Associations between country of origin and reported outcomes",
    "Search and export functionality for literature retrieval/sorting/analysis"
  ],
  "main_findings": "The paper describes and demonstrates the ORSAA searchable database of peer-reviewed non-ionizing EMF/EMR bioeffects papers. As of Sept 15, 2017, most of the 2653 papers in the database examined outcomes in the 300 MHz–3 GHz range; the database contained about three times more papers categorized as reporting an \"Effect\" than \"No Effect\". Nearly one-third of papers had no funding statement; industry-funded studies were reported to more often find \"No Effect,\" while institutionally funded studies commonly reported \"Effects,\" and country of origin appeared to influence reported outcomes.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "The database cannot be used as a sole source of reference for a systematic review on a specific endpoint and reflects only the included papers/status quo.",
    "Nearly a third of included studies do not declare funding, limiting interpretation of funding-related patterns.",
    "Inconsistency between effect and no-effect findings may be influenced by lack of replication between studies."
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "ORSAA",
    "database",
    "non-ionizing radiation",
    "EMF",
    "EMR",
    "radiofrequency",
    "bioeffects",
    "funding source",
    "effect/no effect",
    "literature search"
  ],
  "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: Not supplied
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library