Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9799185›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental health perspectives1998

Cancer risk assessment of extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields: a critical review of methodology.

J McCann

Open access · diamondAbstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental health perspectives, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Are wireless phones safe? A review of the issue.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

J McCannElectric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA 94303 USA.
Electric Power Research Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review provides a discussion of cancer risk assessment methodology pertinent to developing a strategy for extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields (EMF). Approaches taken for chemical agents or ionizing radiation in six key topic areas are briefly reviewed, and then those areas are examined from the perspective of EMF, identifying issues to be addressed in developing a risk assessment strategy. The following recommendations are offered: 1) risk assessment should be viewed as an iterative process that informs an overall judgment as to health risk and consists of a complex of related activities incorporating both positive and negative data, tumor and nontumor end points, and human and nonhuman sources of information; 2) a hazard identification resulting in a conclusion of weak or null effects, such as may be associated with EMF, will need to assign significant weight to animal cancer bioassays conducted under defined exposure conditions as well as to human epidemiologic studies; 3) a default factor to account for possible age differences in sensitivity to carcinogenesis should be included in an EMF risk assessment; 4) lack of evidence of dose response and the apparent lack of DNA reactivity of EMF suggest that a safety (or uncertainty) factor or margin of exposure type of risk characterization may be most appropriate; and 5) an EMF risk assessment should permit at least tentative conclusions to be reached as to the limits of carcinogenic risk from exposure to EMF, and should also define an efficient research agenda aimed at clarifying uncertainties appropriate to a more complete assessment.

Indexed as

AnimalsElectromagnetic FieldsHumansNeoplasmsRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID9799185
PMCPMC1533493
OpenAlexW2017943543

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.