Systematic review of the physiological and health-related effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure from wireless communication devices on children and adolescents in experimental and epidemiological human studies.

BACKGROUND: For more than 20 years, the potential health risks of radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF EMF) exposure from mobile communication devices on children and adolescents have been examined because they are considered sensitive population groups; however, it remains unclear whether such exposure poses any particular risk to them. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to systematically analyze and evaluate the physiological and health-related effects of RF EMF exposures from wireless communication devices (mobile phones, cordless phones, Bluetooth, etc.) on children and adolescents. METHODS: This review was prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Methodological limitations in individual studies were assessed using the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) Risk-of-Bias Rating Tool for Human and Animal Studies. RESULTS: A total of 42 epidemiological and 11 experimental studies were eligible for this review. Most of the studies displayed several methodological weaknesses that limited the internal validity of the results. Due to a lack of consistency regarding the outcomes as well as the lack of scientific rigor in most reviewed studies, the body of evidence for the effects of RF EMF of mobile communication devices on subjective symptoms, cognition, and behavior in children and adolescents was low to inadequate. Evidence from the studies investigating early childhood development, brain activity, cancer, and physiological parameters was considered inadequate for drawing conclusions about possible effects. DISCUSSION: Overall, the body of evidence allows no final conclusion on the question whether exposure to RF EMF from mobile communication devices poses a particular risk to children and adolescents. There has been rapid development in technologies generating RF EMF, which are extensively used by children and adolescents. Therefore, we strongly recommend high-quality systematic research on children and adolescents, since they are generally considered as sensitive age groups.

Occupational Exposure to Extremely Low-Frequency Magnetic Fields and Risk of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: Results of a Feasibility Study for a Pooled Analysis of Original Data.

Previous meta-analyses have suggested an increased risk of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) associated with occupational exposure to extremely low-frequency magnetic fields (ELF-MF). However, results should be interpreted with caution since studies were methodologically heterogeneous. Here, we assessed the feasibility of a pooling study to harmonize and re-analyze available original data. A systematic literature search was conducted. Published epidemiological studies were identified in PubMed and EMF-Portal from literature databases' inception dates until January 2019. The characteristics of all studies were described, including exposure metrics, exposure categories, and confounders. A survey among the principal investigators (PI) was carried out to assess their willingness to provide their original data. The statistical power of a pooling study was evaluated. We identified 15 articles published between 1997 and 2019. Studies differed in terms of outcome, study population, exposure assessment, and exposure metrics. Most studies assessed ELF-MF as average magnetic flux density per working day; however, exposure categories varied widely. The pattern of adjustment for confounders was heterogeneous between studies, with age, sex, and socioeconomic status being most frequent. Eight PI expressed their willingness to provide original data. A relative risk of ≥1.14 for ALS and occupational exposure to ELF-MF can be detected with a power of more than 80% in a pooled study. The pooling of original data is recommended and could contribute to a better understanding of ELF-MF in the etiology of ALS based on a large database and reduced heterogeneity due to a standardized analysis protocol with harmonized exposure metrics and exposure categories. Bioelectromagnetics. © 2021 Bioelectromagnetics Society.

Biological and health-related effects of weak static magnetic fields (≤ 1 mT) in humans and vertebrates: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is a rapid development in technologies that generate weak static magnetic fields (SMF) including high-voltage direct current (HVDC) lines, systems operating with batteries, such as electric cars, and devices using permanent magnets. However, few reviews on the effects of such fields on biological systems have been prepared and none of these evaluations have had a particular focus on weak SMF (≤ 1 mT). The aim of this review was to systematically analyze and evaluate possible effects of weak SMF (≤ 1 mT) on biological functioning and to provide an update on the current state of research. METHODS: This review was prepared in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. Methodological limitations in individual studies were assessed using the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) Risk-of-Bias Rating Tool. RESULTS: Eleven studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. All included studies were experimental animal studies as no human studies were among the eligible articles. Eight of the eleven studies reported responses of rat, rabbits and quails to weak SMF exposure that were expressed as altered melatonin biosynthesis, reduced locomotor activity, altered vasomotion and blood pressure, transient changes in blood pressure-related biochemical parameters, or in the level of neurotransmitters and increases in enzyme activities. It remained largely unclear from the interpretation of the results whether the reported effects in the evaluated studies were beneficial or detrimental for health. CONCLUSION: The available evidence from the literature reviewed is not sufficient to draw a conclusion for biological and health-related effects of exposure to weak SMF. There was a lack of homogeneity regarding the exposed biological systems and the examined endpoints as well as a lack of scientific rigor in most reviewed studies which lowered credibility in the reported results. We therefore encourage further and more systematic research in this area. Any new studies should particularly address effects of exposure to SMF on biological functioning in humans to evaluate whether SMF pose a risk to human health.

Direct current electrical injuries: A systematic review of case reports and case series.

BACKGROUND: Direct current (DC) powered equipment and devices, including photovoltaic systems, high-voltage direct current power lines and novel concepts in electromobility have become increasingly popular in recent years. However, under adverse circumstances by malfunction or mishandling of these applications electrical injuries may occur when electric current passes through the human body. This review aimed at systematically summarizing the medical consequences of DC electrical injuries described in case reports and case series. METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guided the methodological conduct and reporting. RESULTS: Sixteen case reports and 3 case series were eligible for this review and included 70 patients. The reviewed articles were very heterogeneous regarding sources of DC electrical injuries and the reported medical consequences, including burns and skin lesions (n=67), neurological consequences (n=11), unconsciousness (n=10), cardiac consequences (n=8) and bone fractures (n=6). Seventeen individuals did not survive the electrical injuries. CONCLUSION: From the few available data and partly incomplete documentations of cases we could gather hints of DC medical consequences, however, it was not possible to identify well-defined medical consequences for various circumstances of DC electrical injuries in occupational and non-occupational settings. To achieve this goal, additional studies are required, each providing a comprehensive description of the medical consequences and the circumstances of the electrical injuries.

Systematic review on the biological effects of electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields in the intermediate frequency range (300 Hz to 1 MHz).

BACKGROUND: Many novel technologies, including induction cookers or wireless power transfer, produce electric fields (EF), magnetic fields (MF) or electromagnetic fields (EMF) in the intermediate frequency (IF) range. The effects of such fields on biological systems, however, have been poorly investigated. The aim of this systematic review was to provide an update of the state of research and to evaluate the potential for adverse effects of EF, MF and EMF in the IF range (300 Hz to 1 MHz) on biological systems. METHODS: The review was prepared in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Methodical limitations in individual studies were assessed using the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) Risk of Bias Rating Tool for Human and Animal Studies. RESULTS: Fifty-six studies exposing humans, animals or in vitro systems were eligible for this review. In these studies, many different endpoints were examined and most of the findings were obtained in studies with exposure to MF. For most endpoints, however, the reviewed studies yielded inconsistent results, with some studies indicating no effect and some linking IF exposure with adverse effects. In the majority of the included studies, the applied field strengths were above the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) reference levels for the general public and the applied frequencies were mainly below 100 kHz. Furthermore, many of the reviewed studies suffered from methodical limitations which lowered the credibility of the reported results. CONCLUSION: Due to the large heterogeneity in study designs, endpoints and exposed systems, as well as the inconsistent results and methodical limitations in many studies, the quality of evidence for adverse effects remains inadequate for drawing a conclusion on investigated biological effects of IF fields for most endpoints. We recommend that in future studies, effects of EF, MF and EMF in the IF range should be investigated more systematically, i.e., studies should consider various frequencies to identify potential frequency-dependent effects and apply different field strengths, especially if threshold-dependent effects are expected. Priority should be given to the investigation of acute effects, like induction of phosphenes, perception, excitation of nerves or muscles and thermal effects. This would be an important step towards the validation of the reference levels recommended by ICNIRP. Furthermore, we recommend that any new studies aim at implementing high quality dosimetry and minimizing sources of risk of bias.

Biological effects of exposure to static electric fields in humans and vertebrates: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: High-voltage direct current (HVDC) lines are the technology of choice for the transport of large amounts of energy over long distances. The operation of these lines produces static electric fields (EF), but the data reviewed in previous assessments were not sufficient to assess the need for any environmental limit. The aim of this systematic review was to update the current state of research and to evaluate biological effects of static EF. METHODS: Using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) recommendations, we collected and evaluated experimental and epidemiological studies examining biological effects of exposure to static EF in humans (n = 8) and vertebrates (n = 40). RESULTS: There is good evidence that humans and animals are able to perceive the presence of static EF at sufficiently high levels. Hair movements caused by electrostatic forces may play a major role in this perception. A large number of studies reported responses of animals (e.g., altered metabolic, immunologic or developmental parameters) to a broad range of static EF strengths as well, but these responses are likely secondary physiological responses to sensory stimulation. Furthermore, the quality of many of the studies reporting physiological responses is poor, which raises concerns about confounding. CONCLUSION: The weight of the evidence from the literature reviewed did not indicate that static EF have adverse biological effects in humans or animals. The evidence strongly supported the role of superficial sensory stimulation of hair and skin as the basis for perception of the field, as well as reported indirect behavioral and physiological responses. Physical considerations also preclude any direct effect of static EF on internal physiology, and reports that some physiological processes are affected in minor ways may be explained by other factors. While this literature does not support a level of concern about biological effects of exposure to static EF, the conditions that affect thresholds for human detection and possible annoyance at suprathreshold levels should be investigated.

Interactions from complementary and alternative medicine in patients with melanoma.

Biological-based (BbCAM) methods from complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) may interact with cancer treatments, reduce efficacy, or enhance adverse effects. Although CAM usage has been evaluated well in other cancer entities, data on melanoma patients are still missing. The aim of this study was to determine CAM usage of melanoma patients using a standardized questionnaire to identify potential interactions with established and new systemic melanoma therapies. This multicenter study was carried out in seven German skin cancer centers. During routine care contact, CAM usage of former and current melanoma treatment was assessed in melanoma patients. The probability of interaction was classified into four categories ranging from 'interaction unlikely' (I), 'possible' (II), 'likely' (III), or 'no data' (IV). The questionnaire was filled out by 1157 patients, of whom 1089 were eligible for evaluation. CAM usage was reported by 41% of melanoma patients, of whom 63.1% took BbCAM such as vitamins, trace elements, supplements, or phytotherapeuticals. Of 335 patients with former or current therapy, 28.1% used BbCAM. The melanoma treatment included interferon, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, BRAF-inhibitor, or other tyrosine kinase inhibitors and ipilimumab. On the basis of our model of likelihood of interaction, we found that 23.9% of those on cancer therapy and 85.1% of those also using BbCAM were at some risk of interactions. The main limitation of our study is that no reliable and comprehensive database on clinical relevant interactions with CAM in oncology exists. Most patients receiving a melanoma-specific treatment and using BbCAM methods are at risk for interactions, which raises concerns on the safety and treatment efficacy of these patients. To protect melanoma patients from potential harm by the combination of their cancer treatment and CAM usage, patients should systematically be encouraged to report their CAM use, while oncologists should be trained on evidence of CAM, and patient guidance for saver CAM use.

Use of complementary and alternative medicine: A multicenter cross-sectional study in 1089 melanoma patients.

BACKGROUND: About half of patients with cancer use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). So far, data on melanoma patients are missing. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to evaluate the prevalence and predictors for the use of CAM in this patient group. METHODS: All patients with melanoma being attended at one of 7 skin cancer centres in Germany between March 2012 and March 2013 were invited to take part in a survey using a structured questionnaire on CAM. The physicians filled in a second part on the diagnosis, state and former and current therapy. RESULTS: Nearly half of the 1089 participants (41.0%) used CAM and half of those using CAM (56.8%) marked that this made them feel better. Biological-based CAMs which consists of substances taken were used by 25.9% of all patients (63.1% of those using CAM). Predictors of CAM use were education, psychological support, interest in CAM and previous CAM use. CAM users show higher physical activity, more often use psychosocial help and have contact with a self-help group. Family and friends (41.0%) as well as print media (41.7%) are the main sources of information. Most important reasons to use CAM are to strengthen one's own forces (57.7%) or the immune system (63.4%) and to be able to do something for oneself (53.7%). CONCLUSION: Communication on CAM should become a regular topic in counselling melanoma patients. To increase safety, patients and physicians must have access to evidence-based information on these methods and their interactions with modern cancer treatments.

Risk of interactions between complementary and alternative medicine and medication for comorbidities in patients with melanoma.

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is used widely among cancer patients. Beside the risk of interaction with cancer therapies, interactions with treatment for comorbidities are an underestimated problem. The aim of this study was to assess prevalence of interactions between CAM and drugs for comorbidities from a large CAM usage survey on melanoma patients and to classify herb-drug interactions with regard to their potential to harm. Consecutive melanoma outpatients of seven skin cancer centers were asked to complete a standardized CAM questionnaire including questions to their CAM use and their taken medication for comorbidities and cancer. Each combination of conventional drugs and complementary substances was evaluated for their potential of interaction. 1089 questionnaires were eligible for evaluation. From these, 61.6% of patients reported taking drugs regularly from which 34.4% used biological-based CAM methods. Risk evaluation for interaction was possible for 180 CAM users who listed the names or substances they took for comorbidities. From those patients, we found 37.2% at risk of interaction of their co-consumption of conventional and complementary drugs. Almost all patients using Chinese herbs were at risk (88.6%). With a high rate of CAM usage at risk of interactions between CAM drugs and drugs taken for comorbidities, implementation of a regular assessment of CAM usage and drugs for comorbidities is mandatory in cancer care.