Odor and noise intolerance in persons with self-reported electromagnetic hypersensitivity.

International journal of environmental research and public health · 2014 · Unclear · Low evidence

← Research stream

UnclearLow evidencePaper 4664

Compared with healthy controls, the EHS group scored significantly higher on all subscales and global measures of both the Chemical Sensitivity Scale (CSS) and the Noise Sensitivity Scale (NSS). Correlations between CSS and NSS scores ranged from 0.60 to 0.65…

Study snapshot

PublicationInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2014

Study typecase_control

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Lack of confirmation of symptoms attributed to electromagnetic fields (EMF) and triggered by EMF exposure has highlighted the role of individual factors. Prior observations indicate intolerance to other types of environmental exposures among persons with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). This study assessed differences in odor and noise intolerance between persons with EHS and healthy controls by use of subscales and global measures of the Chemical Sensitivity Scale (CSS) and the Noise Sensitivity Scale (NSS). The EHS group scored significantly higher than the controls on all CSS and NSS scales. Correlation coefficients between CSS and NSS scores ranged from 0.60 to 0.65 across measures. The findings suggest an association between EHS and odor and noise intolerance, encouraging further investigation of individual factors for understanding EMF-related symptoms.

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 typecase_control

Effect directionunclear

PopulationPersons with self-reported electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) and healthy controls

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureNot supplied

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Outcomes measured

Odor intolerance (Chemical Sensitivity Scale; CSS)
Noise intolerance (Noise Sensitivity Scale; NSS)
Correlation between CSS and NSS scores

Limitations

Sample size not reported in abstract
Exposure to EMF was not experimentally manipulated or quantified in the abstract (EHS is self-reported)
Cross-sectional comparison limits causal inference

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "case_control",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": null,
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Persons with self-reported electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) and healthy controls",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Odor intolerance (Chemical Sensitivity Scale; CSS)",
    "Noise intolerance (Noise Sensitivity Scale; NSS)",
    "Correlation between CSS and NSS scores"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Compared with healthy controls, the EHS group scored significantly higher on all subscales and global measures of both the Chemical Sensitivity Scale (CSS) and the Noise Sensitivity Scale (NSS). Correlations between CSS and NSS scores ranged from 0.60 to 0.65 across measures.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Sample size not reported in abstract",
    "Exposure to EMF was not experimentally manipulated or quantified in the abstract (EHS is self-reported)",
    "Cross-sectional comparison limits causal inference"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "electromagnetic hypersensitivity",
    "EHS",
    "odor intolerance",
    "chemical sensitivity",
    "noise sensitivity",
    "environmental intolerance",
    "self-reported symptoms"
  ],
  "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: 10.3390/ijerph110908794
PubMed: 25166918

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library