Symptom Presentation in Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance With Attribution to Electromagnetic Fields: Evidence for a Nocebo Effect Based on Data Re-Analyzed From Two Previous Provocation Studies.

Frontiers in psychology · 2018 · No effect · Moderate evidence

← Research stream

No effectModerate evidencePaper 5517

Study snapshot

PublicationFrontiers in psychology · 2018

Study typeother

Reported directionNo effect

Evidence ratingModerate

Abstract

Individuals with idiopathic environmental illness with attribution to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF) claim they experience adverse symptoms when exposed to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from mobile telecommunication devices. However, research has consistently reported no relationship between exposure to EMFs and symptoms in IEI-EMF individuals. The current study investigated whether presence of symptoms in IEI-EMF individuals were associated with a nocebo effect. Data from two previous double-blind provocation studies were re-analyzed based on participants' judgments as to whether or not they believed a telecommunication base station was "on" or "off". Experiment 1 examined data in which participants were exposed to EMFs from Global System for Mobile Communication, Universal Mobile Telecommunications System, and sham base station signals. In Experiment 2, participants were exposed to EMFs from Terrestrial Trunked Radio Telecommunications System and sham base station signals. Our measures of subjective well-being indicated IEI-EMF participants consistently reported significantly lower levels of well-being, when they believed the base station was "on" compared to "off". Interestingly, control participants also reported experiencing more symptoms and greater symptom severity when they too believed the base station was "on" compared to "off". Thus, a nocebo effect provides a reasonable explanation for the presence of symptoms in IEI-EMF and control participants.

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 typeother

Effect directionno_effect

PopulationIndividuals with idiopathic environmental intolerance with attribution to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF) and control participants

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureRF

Evidence strengthModerateConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Data re-analyzed from two previous double-blind provocation studies showed that IEI-EMF participants reported significantly lower well-being when they believed a telecommunication base station was "on" versus "off". Control participants also reported more symptoms and greater symptom severity when they believed the base station was "on" versus "off", consistent with a nocebo effect rather than an EMF exposure effect.

Outcomes measured

Subjective well-being
Symptoms
Symptom severity

Limitations

Re-analysis of data from two previous studies (not a new primary experiment)
Exposure parameters (e.g., frequency, intensity/SAR, duration) not reported in the abstract
Sample size not reported in the abstract

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "other",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "base station",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Individuals with idiopathic environmental intolerance with attribution to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF) and control participants",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Subjective well-being",
    "Symptoms",
    "Symptom severity"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Data re-analyzed from two previous double-blind provocation studies showed that IEI-EMF participants reported significantly lower well-being when they believed a telecommunication base station was \"on\" versus \"off\". Control participants also reported more symptoms and greater symptom severity when they believed the base station was \"on\" versus \"off\", consistent with a nocebo effect rather than an EMF exposure effect.",
  "effect_direction": "no_effect",
  "limitations": [
    "Re-analysis of data from two previous studies (not a new primary experiment)",
    "Exposure parameters (e.g., frequency, intensity/SAR, duration) not reported in the abstract",
    "Sample size not reported in the abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "moderate",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "IEI-EMF",
    "electromagnetic fields",
    "nocebo effect",
    "provocation study",
    "double-blind",
    "base station",
    "GSM",
    "UMTS",
    "TETRA",
    "sham exposure",
    "symptoms",
    "subjective well-being"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.32,
      "reason": "Addresses symptoms attributed to RF EMF exposure and reports no relationship between exposure and symptoms, relevant to major guideline/health-evidence 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: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01563
PubMed: 30210397

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library