Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28416002›Full record

SynthesisEnvironmental health : a global access science source2017

Biological effects of exposure to static electric fields in humans and vertebrates: a systematic review.

Anne-Kathrin Petri, Kristina Schmiedchen, Dominik Stunder, Dagmar Dechent, Thomas Kraus, William H Bailey, Sarah Driessen

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Environmental health : a global access science source, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.8field-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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. The role of magnetic fields in neurodegenerative diseases.International journal of biometeorology · 2021
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Anne-Kathrin PetriResearch Center for Bioelectromagnetic Interaction, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany. petri@femu.rwth-aachen.de.
Kristina SchmiedchenResearch Center for Bioelectromagnetic Interaction, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Dominik StunderResearch Center for Bioelectromagnetic Interaction, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Dagmar DechentResearch Center for Bioelectromagnetic Interaction, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Thomas KrausResearch Center for Bioelectromagnetic Interaction, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
William H BaileyCenter for Occupational and Environmental Health Risk Assessment, Exponent, 17000 Science Drive, Suite 200, Bowie, MD, 20715, USA.
Sarah DriessenResearch Center for Bioelectromagnetic Interaction, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
RWTH Aachen University · DEExponent (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh-voltage direct current (HVDC) lines are the technology of choice for the transport of large amounts of energy over long distances. The operation of these lines produces static electric fields (EF), but the data reviewed in previous assessments were not sufficient to assess the need for any environmental limit. The aim of this systematic review was to update the current state of research and to evaluate biological effects of static EF.

methodsUsing the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) recommendations, we collected and evaluated experimental and epidemiological studies examining biological effects of exposure to static EF in humans (n = 8) and vertebrates (n = 40).

resultsThere is good evidence that humans and animals are able to perceive the presence of static EF at sufficiently high levels. Hair movements caused by electrostatic forces may play a major role in this perception. A large number of studies reported responses of animals (e.g., altered metabolic, immunologic or developmental parameters) to a broad range of static EF strengths as well, but these responses are likely secondary physiological responses to sensory stimulation. Furthermore, the quality of many of the studies reporting physiological responses is poor, which raises concerns about confounding.

conclusionThe weight of the evidence from the literature reviewed did not indicate that static EF have adverse biological effects in humans or animals. The evidence strongly supported the role of superficial sensory stimulation of hair and skin as the basis for perception of the field, as well as reported indirect behavioral and physiological responses. Physical considerations also preclude any direct effect of static EF on internal physiology, and reports that some physiological processes are affected in minor ways may be explained by other factors. While this literature does not support a level of concern about biological effects of exposure to static EF, the conditions that affect thresholds for human detection and possible annoyance at suprathreshold levels should be investigated.

Indexed as

Environmental ExposureAnimalsBirdsElectric WiringElectromagnetic FieldsHumansMammalsBiological effectsExposureField perceptionHigh-voltage direct currentPhysiological functionsPower lineStatic electric fields

Identifiers

PMID28416002
PMCPMC5393013
OpenAlexW2605628019

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.