The INTERPHONE study: design, epidemiological methods, and description of the study population

Eur J Epidemiol · 2007 · Harm · Moderate evidence

← Research stream
HarmModerate evidencePaper 6784

The INTERPHONE study found a potential increase in glioma risk among heavy mobile phone users defined as more than 1,640 hours of use. The study included over 5,000 cases across 13 countries. Children were excluded from the study population.

Study snapshot

PublicationEur J Epidemiol · 2007
Study typecase_control
Reported directionHarm
Evidence ratingModerate

Abstract

The very rapid worldwide increase in mobile phone use in the last decade has generated considerable interest in the possible health effects of exposure to radio frequency (RF) fields. A multinational case-control study, INTERPHONE, was set-up to investigate whether mobile phone use increases the risk of cancer and, more specifically, whether the RF fields emitted by mobile phones are carcinogenic. The study focused on tumours arising in the tissues most exposed to RF fields from mobile phones: glioma, meningioma, acoustic neurinoma and parotid gland tumours. In addition to a detailed history of mobile phone use, information was collected on a number of known and potential risk factors for these tumours. The study was conducted in 13 countries. Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and the UK using a common core protocol. This paper describes the study design and methods and the main characteristics of the study population. INTERPHONE is the largest case-control study to date investigating risks related to mobile phone use and to other potential risk factors for the tumours of interest and includes 2,765 glioma, 2,425 meningioma, 1,121 acoustic neurinoma, 109 malignant parotid gland tumour cases and 7,658 controls. Particular attention was paid to estimating the amount and direction of potential recall and participation biases and their impact on the study results. The Interphone Study was a large multinational case-control study coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) investigating the link between cell phone use and brain tumors, including glioma and meningioma. Conducted between 2000 and 2010 across 13 countries, it included over 5,000 cases. Heavy use was defined as more than 1,640 hours (approximately 30 minutes per week), revealing a potential increase in glioma risk among heavy users. However, this threshold is now considered trivially low compared to today's usage patterns, where individuals often use their devices for hours daily. Additionally, the study excluded children, a group now recognized as highly vulnerable to EMF exposure. Key Evidence Multinational Scope: Conducted in 13 countries with over 5,000 cases. Usage Threshold: Heavy use defined as >1,640 hours, now seen as low. Risk Identification: Identified increased glioma risk among heavy users. Study Limitations: Exclusion of children, a highly vulnerable group. Effect: HARM Brain tumors found in very low user groups compared to today (Only 30 Mins A Day)

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 directionharm
PopulationAdults in 13 countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, UK); children excluded
Sample sizeNot supplied
ExposureRF · >1,640 hours (heavy use)
Evidence strengthModerateConfidence: 70% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

The INTERPHONE study found a potential increase in glioma risk among heavy mobile phone users defined as more than 1,640 hours of use. The study included over 5,000 cases across 13 countries. Children were excluded from the study population.

Outcomes measured

  • glioma
  • meningioma
  • acoustic neurinoma
  • parotid gland tumours

Limitations

  • Heavy use threshold (>1,640 hours) is low compared to current usage patterns
  • Children, a highly vulnerable group, were excluded
  • Potential recall and participation biases were considered but impact uncertain
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "case_control",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": ">1,640 hours (heavy use)"
  },
  "population": "Adults in 13 countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, UK); children excluded",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "glioma",
    "meningioma",
    "acoustic neurinoma",
    "parotid gland tumours"
  ],
  "main_findings": "The INTERPHONE study found a potential increase in glioma risk among heavy mobile phone users defined as more than 1,640 hours of use. The study included over 5,000 cases across 13 countries. Children were excluded from the study population.",
  "effect_direction": "harm",
  "limitations": [
    "Heavy use threshold (>1,640 hours) is low compared to current usage patterns",
    "Children, a highly vulnerable group, were excluded",
    "Potential recall and participation biases were considered but impact uncertain"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "moderate",
  "confidence": 0.7,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "mobile phone",
    "radio frequency",
    "glioma",
    "meningioma",
    "brain tumors",
    "case-control study",
    "INTERPHONE"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.8,
      "reason": "Study coordinated by IARC and relevant to WHO/ICNIRP guidelines on RF exposure"
    },
    {
      "slug": "5g-policy",
      "weight": 0.5,
      "reason": "Relevant to mobile phone RF exposure and policy considerations"
    }
  ]
}
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: 10.1007/s10654-007-9152-z
PubMed: 17636416

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library