Acute effects of the electromagnetic waves emitted by mobile phones on attention in emergency physicians

2017 · Mixed · Low evidence

← Research stream

MixedLow evidencePaper 2216

Between-group differences from pre- to post-exposure were similar for TN-E (p=0.319), TN (p=0.177), PR (p=0.619), and FR (p=0.083). Differences favored the intervention (phone on; 900–1800 MHz) group for E1 missed figures (p=0.025), E2 incorrectly marked figu…

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2017

Study typerandomized_trial

Reported directionMixed

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Acute effects of the electromagnetic waves emitted by mobile phones on attention in emergency physicians Altuntas G, Sadoglu D, Ardic S, Yilmaz H, Imamoglu M, Turedi S.Acute effects of the electromagnetic waves emitted by mobile phones on attention in emergency physicians. Am J Emerg Med. 2017 Nov 13. pii: S0735- 6757(17)30940-3. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2017.11.031. Abstract STUDY OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the acute effects of the electromagnetic waves (EMW) emitted by mobile phones on attention in emergency physicians. METHODS: This single-center, prospective, randomized, double-blinded clinical study was performed among emergency physicians in a tertiary hospital. Thirty emergency physicians were enrolled in the study. Initial d2 test was applied in the evaluation of attention and concentration of all the physicians, who were randomly assigned into one of two groups. The control group members hold mobile phones in 'off' mode to their left ears for 15min. The members of the intervention group hold mobile phones in 'on' mode to their left ears for 15min, thus exposing them to 900-1800MHz EMW. The d2 test was re-applied to both groups after this procedure. Differences in attention and concentration levels between the groups were compared. RESULTS: Difference between initial and final d2 test in total performance (TN-E, p=0.319), in total number of figures marked (TN, p=0.177), in test performance percentile (PR, p=0.619) and in attention fluctuation (FR, p=0.083) were similar between the groups. However, difference in the number of figures missed (E1 selective attention, p=0.025), difference between numbers of incorrectly marked figures (E2, p=0,018) and difference in focus levels (E, p=0.016) were significantly in favor of the intervention group. CONCLUSION: According to our study findings, the EMW emitted by mobile phones has no deleterious effect on the attention and concentration levels of emergency physicians, and even has a positive impact on selective attention levels. 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 typerandomized_trial

Effect directionmixed

PopulationEmergency physicians in a tertiary hospital (single-center)

Sample size30

ExposureRF · 15 min (phone held to left ear)

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Outcomes measured

Attention and concentration (d2 test outcomes: TN-E total performance, TN total number marked, PR percentile, FR attention fluctuation, E1 missed figures/selective attention, E2 incorrectly marked figures, E focus levels)

Limitations

Single-center study
Small sample size (n=30)
Acute exposure only (15 minutes)
Exposure characterized by phone on/off and frequency range; no SAR or measured exposure levels reported in abstract

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "randomized_trial",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "15 min (phone held to left ear)"
  },
  "population": "Emergency physicians in a tertiary hospital (single-center)",
  "sample_size": 30,
  "outcomes": [
    "Attention and concentration (d2 test outcomes: TN-E total performance, TN total number marked, PR percentile, FR attention fluctuation, E1 missed figures/selective attention, E2 incorrectly marked figures, E focus levels)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Between-group differences from pre- to post-exposure were similar for TN-E (p=0.319), TN (p=0.177), PR (p=0.619), and FR (p=0.083). Differences favored the intervention (phone on; 900–1800 MHz) group for E1 missed figures (p=0.025), E2 incorrectly marked figures (p=0.018), and focus levels E (p=0.016).",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Single-center study",
    "Small sample size (n=30)",
    "Acute exposure only (15 minutes)",
    "Exposure characterized by phone on/off and frequency range; no SAR or measured exposure levels reported in abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "mobile phone",
    "electromagnetic waves",
    "RF",
    "900-1800 MHz",
    "attention",
    "concentration",
    "d2 test",
    "emergency physicians",
    "randomized",
    "double-blind"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0.6,
      "reason": "Study population is emergency physicians (workplace/occupational context) exposed during a clinical experiment."
    }
  ]
}

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.ajem.2017.11.031
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library