Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2007 Jan;115(1):1-4.
doi: 10.1289/ehp.9149.

Source of funding and results of studies of health effects of mobile phone use: systematic review of experimental studies

Anke Huss  1 , Matthias Egger, Kerstin Hug, Karin Huwiler-Müntener, Martin Röösli
Affiliations
Review

Source of funding and results of studies of health effects of mobile phone use: systematic review of experimental studies

Anke Huss et al. Environ Health Perspect. 2007 Jan.

Abstract

Objectives: There is concern regarding the possible health effects of cellular telephone use. We examined whether the source of funding of studies of the effects of low-level radiofrequency radiation is associated with the results of studies. We conducted a systematic review of studies of controlled exposure to radiofrequency radiation with health-related outcomes (electroencephalogram, cognitive or cardiovascular function, hormone levels, symptoms, and subjective well-being).

Data sources: We searched EMBASE, Medline, and a specialist database in February 2005 and scrutinized reference lists from relevant publications.

Data extraction: Data on the source of funding, study design, methodologic quality, and other study characteristics were extracted. The primary outcome was the reporting of at least one statistically significant association between the exposure and a health-related outcome. Data were analyzed using logistic regression models.

Data synthesis: Of 59 studies, 12 (20%) were funded exclusively by the telecommunications industry, 11 (19%) were funded by public agencies or charities, 14 (24%) had mixed funding (including industry), and in 22 (37%) the source of funding was not reported. Studies funded exclusively by industry reported the largest number of outcomes, but were least likely to report a statistically significant result: The odds ratio was 0.11 (95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.78), compared with studies funded by public agencies or charities. This finding was not materially altered in analyses adjusted for the number of outcomes reported, study quality, and other factors.

Conclusions: The interpretation of results from studies of health effects of radiofrequency radiation should take sponsorship into account.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Identification of eligible studies.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Republished in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Ahlbom A, Green A, Kheifets L, Savitz D, Swerdlow A. Epidemiology of health effects of radiofrequency exposure. Environ Health Perspect. 2004;112:1741–1754. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Baker C, Johnsrud M, Crismon M, Rosenheck R, Woods S. Quantitative analysis of sponsorship bias in economic studies of antidepressants. Br J Psychiatry. 2003;183:498–506. - PubMed
    1. Barnes D, Bero L. Industry-funded research and conflict of interest: an analysis of research sponsored by the tobacco industry through the center for indoor air research. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1996;21:515–542. - PubMed
    1. Barnes D, Bero L. Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. JAMA. 1998;279:1566–1570. - PubMed
    1. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA. 2003;289:454–465. - PubMed