Near-field and far-field exposures to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and cancer risks in humans: a protocol for an umbrella review of epidemiological studies

Systematic Reviews · 2026 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 6809

Study snapshot

PublicationSystematic Reviews · 2026

Study typesystematic_review

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

Background Exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF; frequencies 100 kHz to 300 GHz) is ubiquitous. As the use of RF-EMF has grown steadily since the 1950s due to advances in telecommunications and other technologies, concerns about potential health effects have persisted. The World Health Organization (WHO) identified key areas of concern, with cancer being most frequently rated as critical. To synthesize evidence on the association between RF-EMF exposure and neoplastic diseases, we will carry out two separate umbrella reviews to account for different RF-EMF exposure conditions: one will focus on near-field exposure and the other on far-field exposure. Both umbrella reviews will include RF-EMF exposure in living and occupational settings. Methods Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of human observational studies on RF-EMF and cancer were searched in MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, EMF-Portal, and Epistemonikos databases. Eligibility criteria will follow the PECOS (Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcome, Study type) scheme. Eligibility and quality of the identified articles will be evaluated by two reviewers independently. The tools AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) and ROBIS (Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews) will be used to systematically assess methodological quality and risk of bias. Data will be extracted and summarized in a qualitative synthesis using standardized forms and presented in text and tables. Discussion These umbrella reviews aim to offer a comprehensive overview of the topic by including systematic reviews and meta-analyses that studied cancer-related health effects of near-field and far-field RF-EMF exposure. In addition, a risk of bias rating will be performed to assess the quality of existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42024529007 The article, titled "Near-field and far-field exposures to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and cancer risks in humans: a protocol for an umbrella review of epidemiological studies", was published on March 12, 2026, in the journal Systematic Reviews. It's authored by a large international team (including folks from Germany, Italy, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Greece, and more). What it's actually about The authors explain that RF-EMF exposure (from cell phones, Wi-Fi, etc., in the 100 kHz–300 GHz range) is everywhere, and cancer has long been a top concern raised by the WHO. Their plan is to run two separate umbrella reviews (basically high-level summaries of existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses) to look at the link between RF-EMF and cancer in humans: One focused on near-field exposure (e.g., holding a phone to your head or body-worn devices). One focused on far-field exposure (e.g., base stations, environmental sources). They'll cover both everyday (living) and workplace settings, pulling from databases like MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMF-Portal, and Epistemonikos. They'll assess the quality of those prior reviews using standard tools (AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS for risk of bias) and summarize everything in tables and text.

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 typesystematic_review

Effect directionunclear

Populationhumans

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureRF-EMF

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 0% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Outcomes measured

cancer
neoplastic diseases

Limitations

protocol only, no results yet
focus on systematic reviews and meta-analyses rather than primary studies
quality and risk of bias assessment pending

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "systematic_review",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF-EMF",
    "source": null,
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "humans",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "cancer",
    "neoplastic diseases"
  ],
  "main_findings": null,
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "protocol only, no results yet",
    "focus on systematic reviews and meta-analyses rather than primary studies",
    "quality and risk of bias assessment pending"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "radiofrequency electromagnetic fields",
    "RF-EMF",
    "near-field exposure",
    "far-field exposure",
    "cancer",
    "umbrella review",
    "systematic review",
    "meta-analysis",
    "epidemiology"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.9,
      "reason": "Focus on WHO identified concerns and systematic review of RF-EMF exposure and cancer risk"
    },
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0.7,
      "reason": "Includes occupational settings in exposure assessment"
    }
  ]
}

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: 10.1186/s13643-026-03142-9
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library