Comments regarding: "Occupational exposure to high-frequency electromagnetic fields and brain tumor risk in the INTEROCC study: An individualized assessment approach".

S M J Mortazavi

Abstract readLetterComment

In one paragraph

Article in Environment international, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

Prospective Study of Low- and Standard-dose Chest CT for Pulmonary Nodule Detection: A Comparison of Image Quality, Size Measurements and Radiation Exposure.Current medical science · 2021
Article

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

S M J MortazaviBiophotonics Lab, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, 3200 N Cramer St., Milwaukee, WI 53211, United States of America; Ionizing and Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Research Center (INIRPRC), Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. Electronic address: mortazav@uwm.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This commentary addresses the paper by Vila et al. entitled "Occupational exposure to high-frequency electromagnetic fields and brain tumor risk in the INTEROCC study: An individualized assessment approach" that is published in Environment International. The authors have examined the link between occupational exposures to radiofrequency (RF) and intermediate frequency (IF) electromagnetic fields (EMF) and glioma and meningioma brain tumor risk in the INTEROCC multinational population-based case-control study. This study showed no clear association with exposure to RF or IF EMFs and the risk of glioma or meningioma brain tumors. Recent studies show that in many cases there are large errors and/or major shortcomings in the studies claiming no link between mobile phone and brain cancer. Although the paper by Vila et al. is well-structured and can be considered as a significant contribution to this field, there are several items that merit further attention and are not fully addressed. These include the selection bias, confounding factors other than age, sex, region and country, and criteria used in this study for considering exposures as occupational.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsElectromagnetic FieldsCase-Control StudiesCell PhoneHumansMeningeal NeoplasmsOccupational ExposureRadio WavesBrain cancerElectromagnetic fields (EMF)INTEROCC studyOccupational exposure

Identifiers

PMID30146273

DOI10.1016/j.envint.2018.08.008

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.