ReviewCanadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique
Are wireless phones safe? A review of the issue.
Review in Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most wireless phones and their corresponding base stations operate at a very low power output and in the radiofrequency range of 800 to 2000 Megahertz. Current international guidelines protect against thermal biological effects in terms of the local or whole-body specific absorption rate (SAR). Potential non-thermal bio-effects resulting from the use of wireless phones are not established and laboratory (i.e., in vitro, in vivo) studies have shown conflicting results. Epidemiological studies of potential human health effects are few but are expected to emerge in the near future. Challenges to epidemiological research include difficult exposure assessment, selection of appropriate controls, potential confounding bias, and validation of outcome. Scientists, community advocacy groups, and public health professionals must be equipped to critically analyze the emerging evidence within a benefit/risk assessment framework.
Indexed as
Identifiers
10570577PMC6979774What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.