Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20570865›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2010

Mobile phone base stations and early childhood cancers: case-control study.

Paul Elliott, Mireille B Toledano, J Bennett, L Beale, K de Hoogh, N Best, D J Briggs

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Small-area methods for investigation of environment and health.International journal of epidemiology · 2020
    Article
  6. Review
  7. The challenge of opt-outs from NHS data: a small-area perspective.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2018
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Development of an RF-EMF Exposure Surrogate for Epidemiologic Research.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2015
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Childhood brain tumor epidemiology: a brain tumor epidemiology consortium review.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2014
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Paul ElliottSmall Area Health Statistics Unit, MRC-HPA Centre for Environment and Health, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, St Mary's Campus, London W2 1PG. p.elliott@imperial.ac.uk
Mireille B Toledano
J Bennett
L Beale
K de Hoogh
N Best
D J Briggs
Imperial College London · GB

Funding

Department of HealthMedical Research Council G0801056
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate the risk of early childhood cancers associated with the mother's exposure to radiofrequency from and proximity to macrocell mobile phone base stations (masts) during pregnancy.

designCase-control study.

settingCancer registry and national birth register data in Great Britain.

participants1397 cases of cancer in children aged 0-4 from national cancer registry 1999-2001 and 5588 birth controls from national birth register, individually matched by sex and date of birth (four controls per case).

main outcome measuresIncidence of cancers of the brain and central nervous system, leukaemia, and non-Hodgkin's lymphomas, and all cancers combined, adjusted for small area measures of education level, socioeconomic deprivation, population density, and population mixing.

resultsMean distance of registered address at birth from a macrocell base station, based on a national database of 76,890 base station antennas in 1996-2001, was similar for cases and controls (1107 (SD 1131) m v 1073 (SD 1130) m, P=0.31), as was total power output of base stations within 700 m of the address (2.89 (SD 5.9) kW v 3.00 (SD 6.0) kW, P=0.54) and modelled power density (-30.3 (SD 21.7) dBm v -29.7 (SD 21.5) dBm, P=0.41). For modelled power density at the address at birth, compared with the lowest exposure category the adjusted odds ratios were 1.01 (95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.18) in the intermediate and 1.02 (0.88 to 1.20) in the highest exposure category for all cancers (P=0.79 for trend), 0.97 (0.69 to 1.37) and 0.76 (0.51 to 1.12), respectively, for brain and central nervous system cancers (P=0.33 for trend), and 1.16 (0.90 to 1.48) and 1.03 (0.79 to 1.34) for leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (P=0.51 for trend).

conclusionsThere is no association between risk of early childhood cancers and estimates of the mother's exposure to mobile phone base stations during pregnancy.

Indexed as

Cell PhoneChildChild, PreschoolElectromagnetic FieldsEnvironmental ExposureEpidemiologic MethodsFemaleHumansInfantMaleNeoplasms, Radiation-InducedPregnancyPrenatal Exposure Delayed EffectsResidence CharacteristicsUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID20570865
PMCPMC3191724
OpenAlexW2099637003

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.