ArticleSystematic reviews2026
Near-field and far-field exposures to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and cancer risks in humans: a protocol for an umbrella review of epidemiological studies.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundExposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF; frequencies 100 kHz to 300 GHz) is ubiquitous. As the use of RF-EMF has grown steadily since the 1950s due to advances in telecommunications and other technologies, concerns about potential health effects have persisted. The World Health Organization (WHO) identified key areas of concern, with cancer being most frequently rated as critical. To synthesize evidence on the association between RF-EMF exposure and neoplastic diseases, we will carry out two separate umbrella reviews to account for different RF-EMF exposure conditions: one will focus on near-field exposure and the other on far-field exposure. Both umbrella reviews will include RF-EMF exposure in living and occupational settings.
methodsSystematic reviews and meta-analyses of human observational studies on RF-EMF and cancer were searched in MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, EMF-Portal, and Epistemonikos databases. Eligibility criteria will follow the PECOS (Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcome, Study type) scheme. Eligibility and quality of the identified articles will be evaluated by two reviewers independently. The tools AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) and ROBIS (Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews) will be used to systematically assess methodological quality and risk of bias. Data will be extracted and summarized in a qualitative synthesis using standardized forms and presented in text and tables. DISCUSSION: These umbrella reviews aim to offer a comprehensive overview of the topic by including systematic reviews and meta-analyses that studied cancer-related health effects of near-field and far-field RF-EMF exposure. In addition, a risk of bias rating will be performed to assess the quality of existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024529007.
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.