ReviewFrontiers in public health2025
Epidemiological criteria for causation applied to human health harms from RF-EMF exposure: Bradford Hill revisited.
Review in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A review of potential health risks of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure from mobile phones and base stations in children and pregnant women.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This paper reviews the applicability of standard epidemiological criteria for causation, to the multidisciplinary studies of RF-EMF exposure and various adverse biological and health effects, with the aim of demonstrating that these criteria, although 60 years old, are still helpful in this context-albeit in some cases not entirely straightforward to apply. Methods: This is a commentary, based on Bradford Hill's criteria for assessing evidence of causation, applied to recent primary studies and systematic reviews of the RF-EMF/health-effects literature. Every effort has been made to use non-epidemiological language to reach a wide readership of biologists, physicists, and engineers now active in this field. Results: A rapidly growing number of human observational epidemiological studies have assessed the association of diverse adverse health effects with RF-EMF exposures. However, existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses of these primary studies have substantially diverged in their conclusions. The application of Bradford Hill's epidemiological criteria for assessing evidence of causation, originally designed for use in occupational and environmental health, casts light on some of reasons for this divergence, mostly reflecting the key weaknesses in the primary literature, which are discussed in detail. As a result of these threats to their validity-particularly the facts that (1) exposure measurement is typically subject to substantial error, and (2) insufficient time has elapsed, since modern cell phone use began in earnest, to allow tumors of longer latency to develop-most primary studies to date, and therefore many published systematic reviews of them, probably underestimate the true potential for causation, if in fact this association is causal. Conclusion and recommendations: In view of these findings, international experts representing professional and scientific organizations in this field should convene an independent Guidelines development process to inform future epidemiological studies of associations between RF-EMF exposures and human health outcomes. Wide dissemination of such Guidelines could help researchers, journals and their reviewers in this field to execute, review and publish higher-quality studies to better inform evidence-based policy.
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.