Mobile phone use and glioma risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2017 · Mixed · Low evidence

← Research stream

MixedLow evidencePaper 2259

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2017

Study typemeta_analysis

Reported directionMixed

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Mobile phone use and glioma risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis Yang M, Guo W, Yang C, Tang J, Huang Q, Feng S, Jiang A, Xu X, Jiang G. Mobile phone use and glioma risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017 May 4;12(5):e0175136. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175136. Abstract OBJECTIVE: Many studies have previously investigated the potential association between mobile phone use and the risk of glioma. However, results from these individual studies are inconclusive and controversial. The objective of our study was to investigate the potential association between mobile phone use and subsequent glioma risk using meta-analysis. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of the Science Citation Index Embase and PubMed databases for studies reporting relevant data on mobile phone use and glioma in 1980-2016. The data were extracted and measured in terms of the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random effects model. Subgroup analyses were also carried out. This meta-analysis eventually included 11 studies comprising a total 6028 cases and 11488 controls. RESULTS: There was a significant positive association between long-term mobile phone use (minimum, 10 years) and glioma (OR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.08-1.91). And there was a significant positive association between long- term ipsilateral mobile phone use and the risk of glioma (OR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.12-1.92). Long-term mobile phone use was associated with 2.22 times greater odds of low-grade glioma occurrence (OR = 2.22, 95% CI = 1.69-2.92). Mobile phone use of any duration was not associated with the odds of high-grade glioma (OR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.72-0.92). Contralateral mobile phone use was not associated with glioma regardless of the duration of use. Similarly, this association was not observed when the analysis was limited to high-grade glioma. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that long-term mobile phone use may be associated with an increased risk of glioma. There was also an association between mobile phone use and low-grade glioma in the regular use or long-term use subgroups. However, current evidence is of poor quality and limited quantity. It is therefore necessary to conduct large sample, high quality research or better characterization of any potential association between long-term ipsilateral mobile phone use and glioma risk. Open Access Paper: bit.ly Three additional reviews of mobile phone use and brain tumor research published in 2017: bit.ly

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

PopulationNot supplied

Sample size17516

ExposureRF · any duration; long-term (minimum 10 years); ipsilateral/contralateral use

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Meta-analysis of 11 studies (6028 cases, 11488 controls) found a significant positive association between long-term mobile phone use (minimum 10 years) and glioma (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.08–1.91), and between long-term ipsilateral use and glioma (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.12–1.92). Long-term use was associated with higher odds of low-grade glioma (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.69–2.92), while mobile phone use of any duration was not associated with increased odds of high-grade glioma (reported OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72–0.92). Contralateral use was not associated with glioma regardless of duration.

Outcomes measured

glioma risk
low-grade glioma occurrence
high-grade glioma occurrence
ipsilateral vs contralateral glioma risk

Limitations

Authors state current evidence is of poor quality and limited quantity
Individual studies previously reported inconclusive/controversial results (as described in abstract)

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "meta_analysis",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "any duration; long-term (minimum 10 years); ipsilateral/contralateral use"
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": 17516,
  "outcomes": [
    "glioma risk",
    "low-grade glioma occurrence",
    "high-grade glioma occurrence",
    "ipsilateral vs contralateral glioma risk"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Meta-analysis of 11 studies (6028 cases, 11488 controls) found a significant positive association between long-term mobile phone use (minimum 10 years) and glioma (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.08–1.91), and between long-term ipsilateral use and glioma (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.12–1.92). Long-term use was associated with higher odds of low-grade glioma (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.69–2.92), while mobile phone use of any duration was not associated with increased odds of high-grade glioma (reported OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72–0.92). Contralateral use was not associated with glioma regardless of duration.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Authors state current evidence is of poor quality and limited quantity",
    "Individual studies previously reported inconclusive/controversial results (as described in abstract)"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "mobile phone",
    "radiofrequency",
    "glioma",
    "brain tumor",
    "ipsilateral",
    "contralateral",
    "long-term use",
    "systematic review",
    "meta-analysis",
    "odds ratio"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.35,
      "reason": "Addresses health risk evidence for RF exposure from mobile phones, relevant to guideline/policy discussions."
    }
  ]
}

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: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175136
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library