[The reaction of the circulatory system to stress and electromagnetic fields emitted by mobile phones - 24-h monitoring of ECG and blood pressure].

Medycyna pracy · 2019 · Mixed · Low evidence

← Research stream

MixedLow evidencePaper 5579

Study snapshot

PublicationMedycyna pracy · 2019

Study typecross_sectional

Reported directionMixed

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Experimental studies have shown cardiovascular effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) emitted by mobile phones (e.g., prolonged QTc interval and abnormal blood pressure [BP] values). Also, stress may have an impact on the cardiovascular function. However, there are practically no data regarding the joint effect of exposure to stress and EMF, with both factors pertaining, e.g., to employees of mobile network operators. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Out of 208 subjects who had taken part in survey research, 55 workers agreed to undergo resting ECG, 24-h ECG and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). Their health condition, occupational and life-stress levels and EMF exposure were also assessed. RESULTS: Among the workers using mobile phones for more than 60 min daily, the systolic BP values in office measurement and at night-time in ABPM were significantly higher than among the workers spending less time talking on mobile phones (p = 0.04 and p = 0.036, respectively). The workers with the highest level of occupational stress showed significantly higher systolic 24-h BP (p = 0.007) and at day-time (p = 0.002), both during work (p = 0.010) and after work (p = 0.005), and higher diastolic BP values at day-time (p = 0.028). Cardiovascular response was strongly gender-related: males showed more BP abnormalities while females displayed more impairments in ECG records. The heart rate from 24 h was significantly correlated with the level of occupational stress, after adjusting for gender, life-stress and EMF. CONCLUSIONS: The findings obtained thus far have indicated the need to conduct in-depth studies on the impact of stress and EMF emitted by mobile phones on the health effects, in order to clarify the observed gender-related differences in cardiovascular response to the combined exposure to stress and EMF. Med Pr. 2019;70(4):411-24.

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 typecross_sectional

Effect directionmixed

PopulationWorkers (employees; context includes mobile network operators)

Sample size55

ExposureRF · mobile phone use >60 min daily (vs less); occupational and life-stress also assessed

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Workers using mobile phones for more than 60 min daily had significantly higher systolic blood pressure in office measurement and at night-time in ABPM compared with those talking less (p=0.04; p=0.036). Workers with the highest occupational stress had significantly higher systolic BP across 24-h and day-time measures (including during and after work) and higher day-time diastolic BP; 24-h heart rate correlated with occupational stress after adjusting for gender, life-stress and EMF. Cardiovascular response differed by gender, with more BP abnormalities in males and more ECG impairments in females.

Outcomes measured

Blood pressure (office measurement)
Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (24-h, day-time, night-time; systolic and diastolic)
ECG (resting and 24-h)
Heart rate (24 h)
Occupational stress level
Life-stress level

Limitations

Small monitored subsample (55 of 208 survey participants)
Exposure characterized by self-reported mobile phone use duration; no frequency/SAR reported
Observational design; joint effects of stress and EMF not clearly isolated as causal

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "cross_sectional",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "mobile phone use >60 min daily (vs less); occupational and life-stress also assessed"
  },
  "population": "Workers (employees; context includes mobile network operators)",
  "sample_size": 55,
  "outcomes": [
    "Blood pressure (office measurement)",
    "Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (24-h, day-time, night-time; systolic and diastolic)",
    "ECG (resting and 24-h)",
    "Heart rate (24 h)",
    "Occupational stress level",
    "Life-stress level"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Workers using mobile phones for more than 60 min daily had significantly higher systolic blood pressure in office measurement and at night-time in ABPM compared with those talking less (p=0.04; p=0.036). Workers with the highest occupational stress had significantly higher systolic BP across 24-h and day-time measures (including during and after work) and higher day-time diastolic BP; 24-h heart rate correlated with occupational stress after adjusting for gender, life-stress and EMF. Cardiovascular response differed by gender, with more BP abnormalities in males and more ECG impairments in females.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Small monitored subsample (55 of 208 survey participants)",
    "Exposure characterized by self-reported mobile phone use duration; no frequency/SAR reported",
    "Observational design; joint effects of stress and EMF not clearly isolated as causal"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "mobile phone",
    "RF-EMF",
    "occupational stress",
    "life stress",
    "blood pressure",
    "ABPM",
    "ECG",
    "heart rate",
    "gender differences",
    "workers"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0.78,
      "reason": "Study population is workers; occupational stress and EMF exposure assessed in an employment context."
    }
  ]
}

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: 10.13075/mp.5893.00805
PubMed: 31249426

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library