背景:自1950年代暴露大量人口以来,射频电磁场(RF-EMF)的技术应用一直在稳步增长。世界卫生组织(WHO)正在评估暴露于RF-EMF的潜在健康影响。
目的:系统评估暴露于RF-EMF对人类受试者自我报告的非特异性症状的影响,并评估对存在或不存在RF-EMF暴露的感知的准确性。
方法:资格标准:在普通人群和归因于EMF(IEI-EMF)的特发性环境不耐受个体中进行的实验研究,在任何语言。
方法:Medline,WebofScience,PsycInfo,科克伦图书馆,认识论,Embase和EMF门户,搜索到2022年4月。偏差风险(ROB):我们使用了OHAT开发的RoB工具,适应了本综述的主题。
结果:我们使用随机效应荟萃分析和敏感性分析综合了研究,在适当的地方。
结果:纳入研究:纳入41项研究,大部分来自欧洲,共有2,874名参与者。
结果:考虑到主要结果,我们对10个暴露-结局对进行了荟萃分析.所有证据都表明暴露对高症状没有影响或影响很小(三个比较),中等(四个比较),证据的确定性低(一次比较)和极低(两次比较)。影响(标准平均差,其中正值表明存在暴露的症状)在头部暴露的普通人群中为(95%置信区间)0.08(-0.07至0.22)头痛,睡眠障碍-0.01(-0.22至0.20),复合症状为0.13(-0.51至0.76);全身暴露:0.09(-0.35至0.54),睡眠障碍为0.00(-0.15至0.15),复合症状为-0.05(-0.17至0.07)。对于IEI-EMF个体,SMD范围为-0.19至0.11,所有这些个体的置信区间都与零的值相交。Further,现有证据表明,研究志愿者无法比偶然预期的更好地感知EMF暴露状态,IEI-EMF个体也无法比一般人群更好地确定EMF暴露状态.
结论:证据的局限性:实验条件在持续时间上与现实生活中的情况大不相同,频率,曝光的距离和位置。大多数研究是在年轻时进行的,健康的志愿者,他们可能比普通人群对RF-EMF更有弹性。本系统评价中感兴趣的结果是症状,这是自我报告的。现有信息无法评估急性暴露以外的暴露以及老年人或慢性病患者的潜在影响。不能排除IEI-EMF组中真正的EMF效应被不敏感的受试者的混合所掩盖。然而,关于症状报告和/或现场感知的研究没有发现任何证据表明IEI-EMF组中有特别脆弱的个体,尽管在公开的挑衅研究中,当志愿者被告知是否存在EMF暴露时,这种差异一直被观察到。
结论:现有证据表明,低于监管限值的急性RF-EMF不会引起症状,日常生活中的相应主张与感知的EMF暴露状态有关,而与真实的EMF暴露状态无关。
BACKGROUND: The technological applications of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) have been steadily increasing since the 1950s exposing large proportions of the population. The World Health Organization (WHO) is assessing the potential health effects of exposure to RF-EMF.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess the effects of exposure to RF-EMF on self-reported non-specific symptoms in human subjects and to assess the accuracy of perceptions of presence or absence of RF-EMF exposure.
METHODS: Eligibility criteria: experimental studies carried out in the general population and in individuals with idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to EMF (IEI-EMF), in any language.
METHODS: Medline, Web of Science, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, Embase and EMF portal, searched till April 2022. Risk of Bias (ROB): we used the RoB tool developed by OHAT adapted to the topic of this
review.
RESULTS: we synthesized studies using random effects meta-analysis and sensitivity analyses, where appropriate.
RESULTS: Included studies: 41 studies were included, mostly cross over trials and from Europe, with a total of 2,874 participants.
RESULTS: considering the primary outcomes, we carried out meta-analyses of 10 exposure-outcomes pairs. All evidence suggested no or small non-significant effects of exposure on symptoms with high (three comparisons), moderate (four comparisons), low (one comparison) and very low (two comparisons) certainty of evidence. The effects (standard mean difference, where positive values indicate presence of symptom being exposed) in the general population for head exposure were (95% confidence intervals) 0.08 (-0.07 to 0.22) for headache, -0.01 (-0.22 to 0.20) for sleeping disturbances and 0.13 (-0.51 to 0.76) for composite symptoms; and for whole-body exposure: 0.09 (-0.35 to 0.54), 0.00 (-0.15 to 0.15) for sleeping disturbances and -0.05 (-0.17 to 0.07) for composite symptoms. For IEI-EMF individuals SMD ranged from -0.19 to 0.11, all of them with confidence intervals crossing the value of zero. Further, the available evidence suggested that study volunteers could not perceive the EMF exposure status better than what is expected by chance and that IEI-EMF individuals could not determine EMF conditions better than the general population.
CONCLUSIONS: Limitations of evidence: experimental conditions are substantially different from real-life situations in the duration, frequency, distance and position of the exposure. Most studies were conducted in young, healthy volunteers, who might be more resilient to RF-EMF than the general population. The outcomes of interest in this systematic
review were symptoms, which are self-reported. The available information did not allow to assess the potential effects of exposures beyond acute exposure and in elderly or in chronically ill people. It cannot be ruled out that a real EMF effect in IEI-EMF groups is masked by a mix with insensitive subjects. However, studies on symptoms reporting and/or field perceptions did not find any evidence that there were particularly vulnerable individuals in the IEI-EMF group, although in open provocation studies, when volunteers were informed about the presence or absence of EMF exposure, such differences were consistently observed.
CONCLUSIONS: available evidence suggests that acute RF-EMF below regulatory limits does not cause symptoms and corresponding claims in the everyday life are related to perceived and not to real EMF exposure status.