Comment on "5G mobile networks and health-a state-of-the-science review of the research into low-level RF fields above 6 GHz" by Karipidis et al.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. The assumption of safety is being used to justify the rollout of 5G technologies.Frontiers in public health · 2023
   Article
2. Understanding the public voices and researchers speaking into the 5G narrative.Frontiers in public health · 2023
   Review
3. Wireless technology is an environmental stressor requiring new understanding and approaches in health care.Frontiers in public health · 2022
   Review

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  5G mobile networks and health-a state-of-the-science review of the research into low-level RF fields above 6 GHz.2021

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as