ReviewBioMed research international2015
Real versus Simulated Mobile Phone Exposures in Experimental Studies.
Review in BioMed research international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- A systematic review of mobile phone use and pregnancy and fetal outcomes.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2026Review
- U.S. policy on wireless technologies and public health protection: regulatory gaps and proposed reforms.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- A scoping review and evidence map of radiofrequency field exposure and genotoxicity: assessingFrontiers in public health · 2025Article
- A comprehensive mechanism of biological and health effects of anthropogenic extremely low frequency and wireless communication electromagnetic fields.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- Oxidative Stress Response of Honey Bee Colonies (Insects · 2024Article
- The assumption of safety is being used to justify the rollout of 5G technologies.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Thapsigargin blocks electromagnetic field-elicited intracellular CaPhysiological reports · 2022Article
- Wireless technology is an environmental stressor requiring new understanding and approaches in health care.Frontiers in public health · 2022Review
- Methodology of Studying Effects of Mobile Phone Radiation on Organisms: Technical Aspects.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Human‑made electromagnetic fields: Ion forced‑oscillation and voltage‑gated ion channel dysfunction, oxidative stress and DNA damage (Review).International journal of oncology · 2021Review
- Article
- Correlation of Blood Oxidative Stress Parameters to Indoor Radiofrequency Radiation: A Cross Sectional Study in Jordan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- The Contribution of In Vivo Mammalian Studies to the Knowledge of Adverse Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation on Human Health.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Review
- The effect of Non- ionizing electromagnetic field with a frequency of 50 Hz in Rat ovary: A transmission electron microscopy study.International journal of reproductive biomedicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We examined whether exposures to mobile phone radiation in biological/clinical experiments should be performed with real-life Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) emitted by commercially available mobile phone handsets, instead of simulated EMFs emitted by generators or test phones. Real mobile phone emissions are constantly and unpredictably varying and thus are very different from simulated emissions which employ fixed parameters and no variability. This variability is an important parameter that makes real emissions more bioactive. Living organisms seem to have decreased defense against environmental stressors of high variability. While experimental studies employing simulated EMF-emissions present a strong inconsistency among their results with less than 50% of them reporting effects, studies employing real mobile phone exposures demonstrate an almost 100% consistency in showing adverse effects. This consistency is in agreement with studies showing association with brain tumors, symptoms of unwellness, and declines in animal populations. Average dosimetry in studies with real emissions can be reliable with increased number of field measurements, and variation in experimental outcomes due to exposure variability becomes less significant with increased number of experimental replications. We conclude that, in order for experimental findings to reflect reality, it is crucially important that exposures be performed by commercially available mobile phone handsets.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.