CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 36

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The effect of exposure to radiofrequency fields on cancer risk in the general and working population: A protocol for a systematic review of human observational studies

Lagorio, Susanna, Blettner, Maria, Baaken, Dan, Feychting, Maria, Karipidis, Ken, Loney, Tom, Orsini, Nicola, Röösli, Martin, Paulo, Marilia Silva, Elwood, Mark·2021·Environment International
DOI 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106828PMC PMC8484862
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106828

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 18 references

Research works printed but not linked: 130

  1. Alberani, 1990, The use of grey literature in health sciences: a preliminary survey, Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc., 78, 358
  2. Anzures-Cabrera, 2010, Graphical displays for meta-analysis: An overview with suggestions for practice, Res Synth Methods, 1, 66, 10.1002/jrsm.6 · DOI · Paper page
  3. ARPANSA. Review of radiofrequency health effects research: Scientific literature 2000-2012. in: Radiofrequency Expert Panel, ed. Technical Report Series No 164. Yallambie: Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency; 2014.
  4. Arroyave, 2021, Challenges and recommendations on the conduct of systematic reviews of observational epidemiologic studies in environmental and occupational health, J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol, 31, 21, 10.1038/s41370-020-0228-0 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Auvinen, 2019, Headache, tinnitus and hearing loss in the international Cohort Study of Mobile Phone Use and Health (COSMOS) in Sweden and Finland, Int. J. Epidemiol., 10.1093/ije/dyz127 · DOI
  6. Aydin, 2011, Impact of random and systematic recall errors and selection bias in case–control studies on mobile phone use and brain tumors in adolescents (CEFALO study), Bioelectromagnetics, 32, 396, 10.1002/bem.20651 · DOI
  7. Aydin, 2011, Predictors and overestimation of recalled mobile phone use among children and adolescents, Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol., 107, 356, 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2011.08.013 · DOI
  8. Baan, 2011, Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, Lancet Oncol., 12, 624, 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70147-4 · DOI
  9. Berg, 2005, Assessment of radiofrequency exposure from cellular telephone daily use in an epidemiological study: German validation study of the international case-control study of cancers of the brain–INTERPHONE-Study, J. Expo. Anal. Environ. Epidemiol., 15, 217, 10.1038/sj.jea.7500390 · DOI
  10. Birks, 2021, Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from mobile communication: Description of modeled dose in brain regions and the body in European children and adolescents, Environ. Res., 193, 10.1016/j.envres.2020.110505 · DOI
  11. Bortkiewicz, 2017, Mobile phone use and risk for intracranial tumors and salivary gland tumors - A meta-analysis, Int. J. Occup. Med. Environ. Health, 30, 27
  12. Cabré-Riera, 2020, Estimated whole-brain and lobe-specific radiofrequency electromagnetic fields doses and brain volumes in preadolescents, Environ. Int., 142, 10.1016/j.envint.2020.105808 · DOI
  13. Cardis, 2011, Risk of brain tumours in relation to estimated RF dose from mobile phones: results from five Interphone countries, Occup. Environ. Med., 68, 631, 10.1136/oemed-2011-100155 · DOI
  14. Cardis, 2008, Distribution of RF energy emitted by mobile phones in anatomical structures of the brain, Phys. Med. Biol., 53, 2771, 10.1088/0031-9155/53/11/001 · DOI
  15. Cardis, 2011, Estimation of RF energy absorbed in the brain from mobile phones in the Interphone Study, Occup. Environ. Med., 68, 686, 10.1136/oemed-2011-100065 · DOI
  16. Casjens, 2020, Cancer risks of firefighters: a systematic review and meta-analysis of secular trends and region-specific differences, Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health, 93, 839, 10.1007/s00420-020-01539-0 · DOI
  17. Chapman, 2016, Has the incidence of brain cancer risen in Australia since the introduction of mobile phones 29 years ago?, Cancer Epidemiol, 42, 199, 10.1016/j.canep.2016.04.010 · DOI
  18. Choi, 2020, Cellular phone use and risk of tumors: Systematic review and meta-analysis, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 17, 10.3390/ijerph17218079 · DOI
  19. Crippa A, Orsini N. Multivariate Dose-Response Meta-Analysis: The dosres metaR Package. J Stat Softw 2016;72. · DOI
  20. de Siqueira, 2017, Does cell phone use increase the chances of parotid gland tumor development? A systematic review and meta-analysis, J. Oral Pathol. Med., 46, 480, 10.1111/jop.12531 · DOI
  21. de Vocht, 2016, Inferring the 1985–2014 impact of mobile phone use on selected brain cancer subtypes using Bayesian structural time series and synthetic controls, Environ. Int., 97, 100, 10.1016/j.envint.2016.10.019 · DOI
  22. de Vocht F. Corrigendum to “Inferring the 1985-2014 impact of mobile phone use on selected brain cancer subtypes using Bayesian structural time series and synthetic controls” [Environ. Int. (2016), 97, 100-107]. Environ Int 2017;101:201-202. · DOI
  23. de Vocht, 2019, Analyses of temporal and spatial patterns of glioblastoma multiforme and other brain cancer subtypes in relation to mobile phones using synthetic counterfactuals, Environ. Res., 168, 329, 10.1016/j.envres.2018.10.011 · DOI
  24. Deltour, 2012, Mobile phone use and incidence of glioma in the Nordic countries 1979–2008: consistency check, Epidemiology, 23, 301, 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3182448295 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Dimbylow, 1994, SAR calculations in an anatomically realistic model of the head for mobile communication transceivers at 900 MHz and 1.8 GHz, Phys. Med. Biol., 39, 1537, 10.1088/0031-9155/39/10/003 · DOI
  26. Dimbylow, 1999, Characterisation of energy deposition in the head from cellular phones, Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 83, 139, 10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a032648 · DOI
  27. Dolecek, 2015, Epidemiology of meningiomas post-Public Law 107–206: The Benign Brain Tumor Cancer Registries Amendment Act, Cancer, 121, 2400, 10.1002/cncr.29379 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Elsevier BV. Embase fact sheet. Elsevier Inc.; 2020.
  29. Farhat N, Al Ruwaili H, Gogna P, et al. Systematic review of exposure to radiofrequency fields and cancer PROSPERO - International prospective register of systematic reviews 2020;Protocol CRD 42020202914:1-6.
  30. FDA. Review of published literature between 2008 and 2018 of relevance to radiofrequency radiation and cancer. Food and Drug Administration - Center for Devices and Radiological Health; 2020.
  31. Feychting, 2005, EMF and health, Annu. Rev. Public Health, 26, 165, 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144445 · DOI
  32. Frei, 2010, Classification of personal exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) for epidemiological research: Evaluation of different exposure assessment methods, Environ. Int., 36, 714, 10.1016/j.envint.2010.05.005 · DOI
  33. Gail, 2019, Design choices for observational studies of the effect of exposure on disease incidence, BMJ Open, 9, 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031031 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration, Fitzmaurice C, Abate D, et al. Global, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 29 cancer groups, 1990 to 2017: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. JAMA Oncol 2019;5:1749-1768.
  35. Goedhart, 2018, Recall of mobile phone usage and laterality in young people: The multinational Mobi-Expo study, Environ. Res., 165, 150, 10.1016/j.envres.2018.04.018 · DOI
  36. Goedhart, 2015, Using software-modified smartphones to validate self-reported mobile phone use in young people: A pilot study, Bioelectromagnetics, 36, 538, 10.1002/bem.21931 · DOI
  37. Gong, 2014, Long-term use of mobile phone and its association with glioma: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi, 94, 3102
  38. Greenland S, O Rourke K. Meta-Analysis. in: Rothman K.J., Greenland S., Lash T.L., eds. Modern Epidemiology. Philadelphia, PA (USA): Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2012.
  39. Hansson Mild, 2012, Is there any exposure from a mobile phone in stand-by mode?, Electromagn. Biol. Med., 31, 52, 10.3109/15368378.2011.624232 · DOI
  40. Hardell, 2013, Use of mobile phones and cordless phones is associated with increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma, Pathophysiology, 20, 85, 10.1016/j.pathophys.2012.11.001 · DOI
  41. Hareuveny, 2015, Occupational exposures to radiofrequency fields: results of an Israeli national survey, J. Radiol. Prot., 35, 429, 10.1088/0952-4746/35/2/429 · DOI
  42. Hartwig, 2020, The median and the mode as robust meta-analysis estimators in the presence of small-study effects and outliers, Res Synth Methods, 11, 397, 10.1002/jrsm.1402 · DOI
  43. HCN, 2016, Mobile phones and cancer Part 3. Update and overall conclusions from epidemiological and animal studies, The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands
  44. Higgins, 2003, Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses, BMJ, 327, 557, 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Higgins JPT, Savović J, M.J. P, et al. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. in: Higgins J.P.T., Thomas J., Chandler J., Cumpston M., Li T., Page M.J., Welch V.A., eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6-2 (updated February 2021): Cochrane; 2021b.
  46. IARC. Non-ionizing radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum, vol 102. Lyon: IARC Press; 2013.
  47. ICNIRP, 2020, Guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz), Health Phys., 118, 483, 10.1097/HP.0000000000001210 · DOI · Paper page
  48. ICNIRP, 2020, Principles for non-ionizing radiation protection, Health Phys., 118, 477, 10.1097/HP.0000000000001252 · DOI
  49. IEEE. Std C95.1-2019 Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields, 0 Hz to 300 GHz. 2019.
  50. Inyang, 2010, A new method to determine laterality of mobile telephone use in adolescents, Occup. Environ. Med., 67, 507, 10.1136/oem.2009.049676 · DOI
  51. Ioannidis, 2007, Uncertainty in heterogeneity estimates in meta-analyses, BMJ, 335, 914, 10.1136/bmj.39343.408449.80 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Ioannidis, 2018, Meta-analyses in environmental and occupational health, Occup. Environ. Med., 75, 443, 10.1136/oemed-2016-104128 · DOI
  53. Jensen OM, Parkin DM, MacLennan R, et al. eds. Cancer registration: principles and methods. IARC Sci Publ 95. Lyon: IARC Press; 1991.
  54. Johnson, 2016, Application of the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology to the evidence for developmental and reproductive toxicity of triclosan, Environ. Int., 92–93, 716, 10.1016/j.envint.2016.03.009 · DOI
  55. Joshi, 2020, Actual Output Power Levels of User Equipment in 5G Commercial Networks and Implications on Realistic RF EMF Exposure Assessment, IEEE Access, 8, 204068, 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3036977 · DOI
  56. Karipidis, 2008, Feasibility of constructing the radiation component of an Australian job-exposure matrix, J Occup Health Saf Aust NZ, 24, 53
  57. Karipidis, 2018, Mobile phone use and incidence of brain tumour histological types, grading or anatomical location: a population-based ecological study, BMJ Open, 8, 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024489 · DOI · Paper page
  58. Karipidis K, Elwood M, Benke G, et al. Correction: Mobile phone use and incidence of brain tumour histological types, grading or anatomical location: a population-based ecological study. BMJ Open 2019;9:e024489corr024481. · DOI
  59. Kauppinen, 1998, From cross-tabulations to multipurpose exposure information systems: a new job-exposure matrix, Am. J. Ind. Med., 33, 409, 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0274(199804)33:4<409::AID-AJIM12>3.0.CO;2-2 · DOI
  60. Kiyohara, 2018, Long-term recall accuracy for mobile phone calls in young Japanese people: A follow-up validation study using software-modified phones, J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol, 28, 166, 10.1038/jes.2016.73 · DOI
  61. Kiyohara, 2016, Recall accuracy of mobile phone calls among Japanese young people, J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol, 26, 566, 10.1038/jes.2015.13 · DOI
  62. Lagorio, 2014, Mobile phone use and risk of intracranial tumors: a consistency analysis, Bioelectromagnetics, 35, 79, 10.1002/bem.21829 · DOI
  63. Lauer, 2013, Combining near- and far-field exposure for an organ-specific and whole-body RF-EMF proxy for epidemiological research: a reference case, Bioelectromagnetics, 34, 366, 10.1002/bem.21782 · DOI · Paper page
  64. Laurier D, Röösli M. Ionizing radiation and radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Further clarification of particular risks. in: Wild C.P., Weiderpass E., B.W. S., eds. World Cancer Report: Cancer Research for Cancer Prevention. Lyon: IARC Press; 2020.
  65. Liorni, 2020, Evaluation of specific absorption rate in the far-field, near-to-far field and near-field regions for integrative radiofrequency exposure assessment, Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 190, 459, 10.1093/rpd/ncaa127 · DOI
  66. Little, 2012, Mobile phone use and glioma risk: Comparison of epidemiological study results with incidence trends in the United States, BMJ, 344, 10.1136/bmj.e1147 · DOI · Paper page
  67. Loomis, 2018, Identifying occupational carcinogens: an update from the IARC Monographs, Occup. Environ. Med., 75, 593, 10.1136/oemed-2017-104944 · DOI
  68. Louis, 2007, The 2007 WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system, Acta Neuropathol., 114, 97, 10.1007/s00401-007-0243-4 · DOI
  69. Marques, 2019, Advisory Group recommendations on priorities for the IARC Monographs, Lancet Oncol., 20, 763, 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30246-3 · DOI
  70. Martens, 2017, Modeled and perceived exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from mobile-phone base stations and the development of symptoms over time in a general population cohort, Am. J. Epidemiol., 186, 210, 10.1093/aje/kwx041 · DOI
  71. McKenzie JE, Brennan SE. Chapter 12: Synthesizing and presenting findings using other methods. in: Higgins J.P.T., Thomas J., Chandler J., Cumpston M., Li T., Page M.J., Welch V.A., eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6-2 (updated February 2021): Cochrane; 2021.
  72. Migault, 2019, Development of a job-exposure matrix for assessment of occupational exposure to high-frequency electromagnetic fields (3 kHz-300 GHz), Ann Work Expo Health, 63, 1013, 10.1093/annweh/wxz067 · DOI
  73. Modenese A, Gobba F, Bravo G. Cancer risk in workers with occupational exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: a systematic review of the scientific literature. PROSPERO 2020;Registered protocol CRD42020200202.
  74. Morgan, 2019, GRADE guidelines for environmental and occupational health: A new series of articles in Environment International, Environ. Int., 128, 11, 10.1016/j.envint.2019.04.016 · DOI
  75. Morgan, 2016, GRADE: Assessing the quality of evidence in environmental and occupational health, Environ. Int., 92–93, 611, 10.1016/j.envint.2016.01.004 · DOI
  76. Morgan, 2018, Identifying the PECO: A framework for formulating good questions to explore the association of environmental and other exposures with health outcomes, Environ. Int., 121, 1027, 10.1016/j.envint.2018.07.015 · DOI
  77. NTP-OHAT, 2015, OHAT Risk of Bias Rating Tool for Human and Animal Studies, National Toxicology Program - Office of Health Assessment and Translation
  78. NTP-OHAT. Handbook for Conducting a Literature-Based Health Assessment Using OHAT Approach for Systematic Review and Evidence Integration (March 4, 2019). National Toxicology Program - Office of Health Assessment and Translation; 2019.
  79. Olsen, 2012, Chapter 23 Using Secondary Data
  80. Orsini, 2021, Weighted mixed-effects dose-response models for tables of correlated contrasts, Stata J., 21, 320, 10.1177/1536867X211025798 · DOI
  81. Orsini N, Spiegelman D. Meta-analysis of dose-response relationships. in: Schmid C.H., Stijenen T., Whitev I.R., eds. Handbook of Meta-Analysis: Chapman & Hall; 2020. · DOI
  82. Ostrom QT, Patil N, Cioffi G, et al. CBTRUS Statistical Report: Primary Brain and Other Central Nervous System Tumors Diagnosed in the United States in 2013-2017. Neuro Oncol 2020;22:iv1-iv96. · DOI · Paper page
  83. Page MJ, Higgins JPT, Sterne JAC. Chapter 13: Assessing risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis. in: Higgins J.P.T., Thomas J., Chandler J., Cumpston M., Li T., Page M.J., Welch V.A., eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6-2 (updated February 2021): Cochrane; 2021a.
  84. Persson, 2012, Output power distributions of terminals in a 3G mobile communication network, Bioelectromagnetics, 33, 320, 10.1002/bem.20710 · DOI
  85. Pettersson, 2015, Validation of self-reported start year of mobile phone use in a Swedish case-control study on radiofrequency fields and acoustic neuroma risk, J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol, 25, 72, 10.1038/jes.2014.76 · DOI
  86. Prasad, 2017, Mobile phone use and risk of brain tumours: a systematic review of association between study quality, source of funding, and research outcomes, Neurol Sci, 38, 797, 10.1007/s10072-017-2850-8 · DOI
  87. Radke, 2019, Development of outcome-specific criteria for study evaluation in systematic reviews of epidemiology studies, Environ. Int., 130, 10.1016/j.envint.2019.05.078 · DOI
  88. Repacholi, 2012, Systematic review of wireless phone use and brain cancer and other head tumors, Bioelectromagnetics, 33, 187, 10.1002/bem.20716 · DOI
  89. Reznitsky, 2019, Epidemiology of vestibular schwannomas - prospective 40-year data from an unselected national cohort, Clin Epidemiol, 11, 981, 10.2147/CLEP.S218670 · DOI · Paper page
  90. Rooney, 2014, Systematic review and evidence integration for literature-based environmental health science assessments, Environ. Health Perspect., 122, 711, 10.1289/ehp.1307972 · DOI · Paper page
  91. Röösli, 2019, Brain and salivary gland tumors and mobile phone use: Evaluating the evidence from various epidemiological study designs, Annu. Rev. Public Health, 40, 221, 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-044037 · DOI · Paper page
  92. Roser, 2015, Development of an RF-EMF exposure surrogate for epidemiologic research, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 12, 5634, 10.3390/ijerph120505634 · DOI
  93. Roser, 2017, Personal radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure measurements in Swiss adolescents, Environ. Int., 99, 303, 10.1016/j.envint.2016.12.008 · DOI
  94. Sato, 2019, Simulation of the incidence of malignant brain tumors in birth cohorts that started using mobile phones when they first became popular in Japan, Bioelectromagnetics, 40, 143, 10.1002/bem.22176 · DOI
  95. Savitz, 2019, The problem with mechanistic risk of bias assessments in evidence synthesis of observational studies and a practical alternative: Assessing the impact of specific sources of potential bias, Am. J. Epidemiol., 188, 1581, 10.1093/aje/kwz131 · DOI
  96. SCENIHR, 2015, Potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF), Luxembourg: European Commission's Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks
  97. Schünemann, H., Brożek, J., Guyatt, G., et al., 2013. Chapter 8. Criteria for determining whether the GRADE approach was used. Handbook for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using the GRADE approach Available from https://gradeproorg/cite/guidelinedevelopmentorg/handbook.
  98. Schmiedel, 2009, An evaluation of exposure metrics in an epidemiologic study on radio and television broadcast transmitters and the risk of childhood leukemia, Bioelectromagnetics, 30, 81, 10.1002/bem.20460 · DOI
  99. Schünemann HJ, Higgins JPT, Vist GE, et al. Chapter 14: Completing ‘Summary of findings’ tables and grading the certainty of the evidence. in: Higgins J.P.T., Thomas J., Chandler J., Cumpston M., Li T., Page M.J., Welch V.A., eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6-2 (updated February 2021): Cochrane; 2021.
  100. Schüz, 2009, Lost in laterality: interpreting preferred side of the head during mobile phone use and risk of brain tumour’’ associations, Scand. J. Public Health, 37, 664, 10.1177/1403494809341096 · DOI
  101. Sedgwick, 2015, What is publication bias in a meta-analysis?, BMJ, 351
  102. Shamseer, 2015, Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation, BMJ, 350
  103. Shapiro, 2018, Software tools to facilitate systematic review used for cancer hazard identification, Environ. Health Perspect., 126, 10.1289/EHP4224 · DOI
  104. Siemiatycki, 2018, Availability of a new job-exposure matrix (CANJEM) for epidemiologic and occupational medicine purposes, J. Occup. Environ. Med., 60, e324, 10.1097/JOM.0000000000001335 · DOI
  105. Siemiatycki J, Rushton L. Occupation. The need for continuing vigilance. in: Wild C.P., Weiderpass E., B.W. S., eds. World Cancer Report: Cancer Research for Cancer Prevention. Lyon: IARC Press; 2020.
  106. Smith MT, Guyton KZ. Identifying carcinogens from 10 key characteristics. A new approach based on mechanisms. in: Wild C.P., Weiderpass E., B.W. S., eds. World Cancer Report: Cancer Research for Cancer Prevention. Lyon: IARC Press; 2020.
  107. Steenland, 2020, Risk of bias assessments and evidence syntheses for observational epidemiologic studies of environmental and occupational exposures: Strengths and limitations, Environ. Health Perspect., 128, 95002, 10.1289/EHP6980 · DOI · Paper page
  108. Steliarova-Foucher, 2005, International Classification of Childhood Cancer, Third edition. Cancer, 103, 1457
  109. Sterne, 2011, Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials, BMJ, 343, 10.1136/bmj.d4002 · DOI · Paper page
  110. Swerdlow, 1999, Measurement of radiofrequency radiation exposure in epidemiological studies, Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 83, 149, 10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a032650 · DOI
  111. Takebayashi, 2008, Mobile phone use, exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic field, and brain tumour: a case-control study, Br. J. Cancer, 98, 652, 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604214 · DOI
  112. Thayer, 2016, Using GRADE to respond to health questions with different levels of urgency, Environ. Int., 92–93, 585, 10.1016/j.envint.2016.03.027 · DOI
  113. Urbinello, 2013, Impact of one's own mobile phone in stand-by mode on personal radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure, J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol, 23, 545, 10.1038/jes.2012.97 · DOI
  114. Verbeek, 2021, Prioritizing health outcomes when assessing the effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: A survey among experts, Environ. Int., 146, 10.1016/j.envint.2020.106300 · DOI
  115. Vijayalaxmi, 2019, Comprehensive Review of Quality of Publications and Meta-analysis of Genetic Damage in Mammalian Cells Exposed to Non-Ionizing Radiofrequency Fields, Radiat. Res., 191, 20
  116. Vila, 2016, A source-based measurement database for occupational exposure assessment of electromagnetic fields in the INTEROCC study: A literature review approach, Ann. Occup. Hyg., 60, 184
  117. Vila, 2018, Occupational exposure to high-frequency electromagnetic fields and brain tumor risk in the INTEROCC study: An individualized assessment approach, Environ. Int., 119, 353, 10.1016/j.envint.2018.06.038 · DOI
  118. Villeneuve, 2021, Cell phone use and the risk of glioma: are case-control study findings consistent with Canadian time trends in cancer incidence?, Environ. Res., 111283
  119. Vrijheid, 2009, Recall bias in the assessment of exposure to mobile phones, J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol, 19, 369, 10.1038/jes.2008.27 · DOI
  120. Vrijheid, 2009, Determinants of mobile phone output power in a multinational study: implications for exposure assessment, Occup. Environ. Med., 66, 664, 10.1136/oem.2008.043380 · DOI
  121. Wang, 2016, Meta-analysis of association between mobile phone use and glioma risk, J. Cancer Res. Ther., 12, C298, 10.4103/0973-1482.200759 · DOI
  122. Whaley, 2020, Recommendations for the conduct of systematic reviews in toxicology and environmental health research (COSTER), Environ. Int., 143, 10.1016/j.envint.2020.105926 · DOI · Paper page
  123. WHO. Radio Frequency fields: Environmental Health Criteria Monograph. Consultation on the scientific review for the upcoming WHO Environmental Health Criteria (30 September -15 December 2014). Chapter 12 Cancer. 2014b.
  124. Wild CP, Weiderpass E, B.W. S, et al. eds. World Cancer Report: Cancer Research for Cancer Prevention. Lyon: IARC Press; 2020.
  125. Wirth, 2013, The epidemiology of cancer among police officers, Am. J. Ind. Med., 56, 439, 10.1002/ajim.22145 · DOI
  126. Withrow, 2021, Nonmalignant meningioma and vestibular schwannoma incidence trends in the United States, 2004–2017, Cancer, 10.1002/cncr.33553 · DOI · Paper page
  127. Wood, 2021, Meta-analysis of in vitro and in vivo studies of the biological effects of low-level millimetre waves, J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol, 10.1038/s41370-021-00307-7 · DOI · Paper page
  128. Wood, 2017, Chapter 13: RF Guidelines and Standards
  129. Wood, 2017, Chapter 16: Possible Low-Level Radiofrequency Effects
  130. Yang, 2017, Mobile phone use and glioma risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis, PLoS ONE, 12

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Lagorio, S., Blettner, M., Baaken, D., Feychting, M., Karipidis, K., Loney, T., Orsini, N., Röösli, M., Paulo, M. S., & Elwood, M.
Venue
Environment International
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-12
Volume
157
Pages
106828
ISSN
0160-4120
DOI
10.1016/j.envint.2021.106828
PMC
PMC8484862
Cited by
36
References
18
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review