Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33239049›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health : a global access science source2020

Causal perception is central in electromagnetic hypersensitivity - a commentary on "Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a critical review of explanatory hypotheses''.

Christoph Boehmert, Michael Witthöft, Omer Van den Bergh

Abstract readLetterComment
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental health : a global access science source, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Christoph BoehmertFederal Office for Radiation Protection, Oberschleißheim, Germany. cboehmert@bfs.de.ORCID 0000-0003-3416-6829
Michael WitthöftDepartment for Clinical Psychology, Psychotherapy, and Experimental Psychopathology, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Omer Van den BerghHealth Psychology, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We highly welcome and appreciate the paper of Dieudonné, 2020 ( https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-020-00602-0 ) on the important but frequently neglected topic of hypersensitivity towards electromagnetic fields (EHS). We agree with the author that the electromagnetic hypothesis (that EHS is caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields) appears scientifically largely unfounded and that other theoretical approaches focussing on psychological processes are more plausible and promising. In the view of the author, two such approaches exist, namely a "cognitive hypothesis" (derived from the comprehensive model by Van den Bergh et al., 2017) and an "attributive hypothesis" as suggested by the author. In this commentary, we want to argue (a) that the distinction between the cognitive and the attributive hypothesis is inaccurate at the conceptual level; (b) that the distinction is also misleading at the mechanistic level, due to an incorrect interpretation of the evidence related to the cognitive hypothesis; and (c) that, by using the term "cognitive hypothesis", the existing comprehensive model is inappropriately narrowed down without fully appreciating its explanatory power for the phenomena subsumed under both the cognitive and attributive hypothesis. Therefore, the original term "comprehensive model" should be used rather than the label "cognitive hypothesis".

Indexed as

Electromagnetic FieldsHypersensitivityHumansPerceptionAttributionElectromagnetic hypersensitivityIEI-EMFNoceboPredictive processing

Identifiers

PMID33239049
PMCPMC7687994

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.