Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Protocol

Protocol for a systematic review of the in vivo studies on radiofrequency (100 kHz–300 GHz) electromagnetic field exposure and cancer

Authors: Rosanna Pinto, Lucia Ardoino, Paola Giardullo, Paola Villani, Carmela Marino

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

An Italian project aims to review the scientific literature on the possible carcinogenicity of radiofrequency (100 kHz–300 GHz) electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure. The ENEA team has to carry out a systematic review of the in vivo studies on this topic.

Objectives

Development of a protocol for a systematic review (meta-analysis included) to investigate the potential carcinogenic risk following RF-EMF in vivo exposure to doses above or within legal limits. The aims of this review are (1) to provide a descriptive and, if possible, a quantitative summary of the results of the examined RF-EMF in vivo studies, together with an assessment of the consistency of observations and of the causes of heterogeneity, and (2) to assess the weight of evidence to support or refute the hypothesis of carcinogenic effects caused by RF-EMF exposure and to draw conclusions about the potential for carcinogenicity of RF-EMF exposure.

Methods

We will search for relevant studies in electronic academic databases and in the reference list of selected papers and reviews on the topic, including the descriptive reviews on RF-EMF carcinogenic effect carried out by international panels of experts since 2011. The following elements of the PECO question were defined: experimental studies on rodents of both sexes, all ages and species, all genetic backgrounds (Population) exposed to RF-EMF alone, or in combination with other physical or chemical agents (Exposure); only studies reporting outcome data in exposed and sham control groups (Comparison); and all types of cancer with all tumor-related outcome measures (Outcome) will be included.
Only peer-reviewed articles written in English will be considered without limit in the publication date.
Eligibility criteria were defined for papers to be included. A risk of bias assessment will be performed using a tool specifically developed for animal studies. A meta-analysis will be performed, if feasible, for all outcome measures; for subgroup analysis, a minimum of 3 studies per subgroup will be required. If meta-analysis will not be possible, a narrative synthesis of the results will be reported.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42020191105

Highlights

  • An Italian collaborative research agreement aims to review the scientific literature on the possible carcinogenicity of RF-EMF (100 kHz – 300 GHz).
  • The ENEA team will systematically review and, if possible, meta-analyse estimates the effects of in vivo exposure to RF-EMF exposure on cancer.
  • The ENEA group is a multidisciplinary team of researchers with a consolidated experience both in carcinogenicity experiments and radiofrequency dosimetric assessment.
  • The proposed protocol uses the NTP OHAT Approach for Systematic Review as an organizing framework.
  • The proposed protocol aims to lead to the first systematic review providing a strength of evidence assessment on this topic.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference ANSES. Radiofréquences et santé. Mise à jour de l’expertise. Maisons-Alfort: Agence Nationale de Sécurité sanitaire de l’Alimentation de l’Environnement et du travail; 2013. ANSES. Radiofréquences et santé. Mise à jour de l’expertise. Maisons-Alfort: Agence Nationale de Sécurité sanitaire de l’Alimentation de l’Environnement et du travail; 2013.
2.
go back to reference ANSES. Exposition aux radiofréquences et santé des enfants. Maisons-Alfort: Agence Nationale de Sécurité sanitaire de l’Alimentation de l’Environnement et du travail; 2016. ANSES. Exposition aux radiofréquences et santé des enfants. Maisons-Alfort: Agence Nationale de Sécurité sanitaire de l’Alimentation de l’Environnement et du travail; 2016.
3.
go back to reference ARPANSA. Radiofrequency expert panel. Review of radiofrequency health effects research – scientific literature 2000 – 2012. Yallambie: Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency; 2014. ARPANSA. Radiofrequency expert panel. Review of radiofrequency health effects research – scientific literature 2000 – 2012. Yallambie: Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency; 2014.
4.
go back to reference Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):401–6.CrossRef Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):401–6.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Introduction to metaanalysis. Part 3: fixed-effect versus random-effects models. Chichester: Wiley; 2009a. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Introduction to metaanalysis. Part 3: fixed-effect versus random-effects models. Chichester: Wiley; 2009a.
6.
go back to reference CCARS (Comité Científico Asesor en Radiofrecuencias y Salud). Informe sobre Radiofrecuencia y Salud (2013-2016). Madrid: Colegio Oficial de Ingenieros de Telecomunicación (COIT); 2017. CCARS (Comité Científico Asesor en Radiofrecuencias y Salud). Informe sobre Radiofrecuencia y Salud (2013-2016). Madrid: Colegio Oficial de Ingenieros de Telecomunicación (COIT); 2017.
7.
go back to reference Chou CK, Bassen H, Osepchuk J, Balzano Q, Peterson R, Meltz M, et al. Radiofrequency electromagnetic exposure: tutorial review on experimental dosimetry. Bioelectromagnetics. 1996;17:195–208.CrossRef Chou CK, Bassen H, Osepchuk J, Balzano Q, Peterson R, Meltz M, et al. Radiofrequency electromagnetic exposure: tutorial review on experimental dosimetry. Bioelectromagnetics. 1996;17:195–208.CrossRef
8.
9.
go back to reference Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383–94.CrossRef Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383–94.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference HCN. Mobile phones and cancer part 3. Update and overall conclusions from epidemiological and animal studies. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands; 2016. HCN. Mobile phones and cancer part 3. Update and overall conclusions from epidemiological and animal studies. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands; 2016.
12.
go back to reference Hooijmans CR, Rovers MM, de Vries RBM, Leenaars M, Ritskes-Hoitinga M, Langendam MW. SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool for animal studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014a;14:43.CrossRef Hooijmans CR, Rovers MM, de Vries RBM, Leenaars M, Ritskes-Hoitinga M, Langendam MW. SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool for animal studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014a;14:43.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Hooijmans CR, IntHout G, Ritskes-Hoitinga M, Rovers MM. Meta-analyses of animal studies: an introduction of a valuable instrument to further improve healthcare. ILAR J. 2014b;55(3):418–26.CrossRef Hooijmans CR, IntHout G, Ritskes-Hoitinga M, Rovers MM. Meta-analyses of animal studies: an introduction of a valuable instrument to further improve healthcare. ILAR J. 2014b;55(3):418–26.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference IARC. Working group on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Non-ionizing radiation, part 2: radiofrequency electromagnetic fields 2013/01/01 ed. Lyon: IARC; 2013. IARC. Working group on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Non-ionizing radiation, part 2: radiofrequency electromagnetic fields 2013/01/01 ed. Lyon: IARC; 2013.
16.
go back to reference Interagency Committee on the Health Effects of Non-Ionising Fields (ICHENF). Report to ministers. Wellington: Ministry of Health, New Zealand; 2018. Interagency Committee on the Health Effects of Non-Ionising Fields (ICHENF). Report to ministers. Wellington: Ministry of Health, New Zealand; 2018.
17.
go back to reference Koustas E, Lam J, Sutton P, Johnson PI, Atchley DS, Sen S, et al. The navigation guide - evidence-based medicine meets environmental health: systematic review of nonhuman evidence for PFOA effects on fetal growth. Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122:1015–27.CrossRef Koustas E, Lam J, Sutton P, Johnson PI, Atchley DS, Sen S, et al. The navigation guide - evidence-based medicine meets environmental health: systematic review of nonhuman evidence for PFOA effects on fetal growth. Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122:1015–27.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Kuster N, Schönborn F. Recommended minimal requirements and development guidelines for exposure setups of bio-experiments addressing the health risk concern of wireless communications. Bioelectromagnetics. 2000;21(7):508–14.CrossRef Kuster N, Schönborn F. Recommended minimal requirements and development guidelines for exposure setups of bio-experiments addressing the health risk concern of wireless communications. Bioelectromagnetics. 2000;21(7):508–14.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.CrossRef Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Moja L, Pecoraro V, Ciccolallo L, Dall'Olmo L, Virgili G, Garattini S. Flaws in animal studies exploring statins and impact on meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Investig. 2014;44(6):597–612.CrossRef Moja L, Pecoraro V, Ciccolallo L, Dall'Olmo L, Virgili G, Garattini S. Flaws in animal studies exploring statins and impact on meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Investig. 2014;44(6):597–612.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference NTP (National Toxicology Program), 2015a. Handbook for conducting a literature-based health assessment using OHAT approach for systematic review and evidence. Office of Health Assessment and Translation. (http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/38673) (last access Jan 2022). NTP (National Toxicology Program), 2015a. Handbook for conducting a literature-based health assessment using OHAT approach for systematic review and evidence. Office of Health Assessment and Translation. (http://​ntp.​niehs.​nih.​gov/​go/​38673) (last access Jan 2022).
23.
go back to reference Paffi A, Merla C, Pinto R, Lovisolo GA, Liberti M, Marino C, et al. Microwave exposure systems for in vivo biological experiments: a systematic review. IEEE Transact Microwave Theory Techniques. 2013;61(5):1980–93.CrossRef Paffi A, Merla C, Pinto R, Lovisolo GA, Liberti M, Marino C, et al. Microwave exposure systems for in vivo biological experiments: a systematic review. IEEE Transact Microwave Theory Techniques. 2013;61(5):1980–93.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference SCENIHR (Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks). Potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF). Luxembourg: European Commission; 2015. SCENIHR (Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks). Potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF). Luxembourg: European Commission; 2015.
25.
go back to reference Scientific Council on Electromagnetic Fields. Eighth report from SSM’s scientific council on electromagnetic fields. Stockholm: Swedish Radiation Safety Authority; 2013. Scientific Council on Electromagnetic Fields. Eighth report from SSM’s scientific council on electromagnetic fields. Stockholm: Swedish Radiation Safety Authority; 2013.
26.
go back to reference Scientific Council on Electromagnetic Field. 2019. Recent research on EMF and health risk: thirteenth report from SSM’s scientific council on electromagnetic fields, 2018. Authority SRS, editor. Stockholm: Swedish Radiation Safety Authority. Scientific Council on Electromagnetic Field. 2019. Recent research on EMF and health risk: thirteenth report from SSM’s scientific council on electromagnetic fields, 2018. Authority SRS, editor. Stockholm: Swedish Radiation Safety Authority.
27.
go back to reference Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349:g7647.CrossRef Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349:g7647.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference The Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel 2014: A Review of Safety Code 6. Health Canada’s safety limits for exposure to radiofrequency fields; 2013. The Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel 2014: A Review of Safety Code 6. Health Canada’s safety limits for exposure to radiofrequency fields; 2013.
29.
go back to reference Vesterinen HM, Sena ES, Egan KJ, Hirst TC, Churolov L, Currie GL, et al. Meta-analysis of data from animal studies: a practical guide. J Neurosci Methods. 2013;221C:92–102. Vesterinen HM, Sena ES, Egan KJ, Hirst TC, Churolov L, Currie GL, et al. Meta-analysis of data from animal studies: a practical guide. J Neurosci Methods. 2013;221C:92–102.
30.
go back to reference World Health Organization (WHO). Radio frequency fields: environmental health criteria monograph. Consultation on the scientific review for the upcoming WHO environmental health criteria chapter 12 cancer; 2014. p. 239. World Health Organization (WHO). Radio frequency fields: environmental health criteria monograph. Consultation on the scientific review for the upcoming WHO environmental health criteria chapter 12 cancer; 2014. p. 239.
31.
go back to reference Woodruff TJ, Sutton P. The navigation guide systematic review methodology: a rigorous and transparent method for translating environmental health science into better health outcomes. Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122:1007–14.CrossRef Woodruff TJ, Sutton P. The navigation guide systematic review methodology: a rigorous and transparent method for translating environmental health science into better health outcomes. Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122:1007–14.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Protocol for a systematic review of the in vivo studies on radiofrequency (100 kHz–300 GHz) electromagnetic field exposure and cancer
Authors
Rosanna Pinto
Lucia Ardoino
Paola Giardullo
Paola Villani
Carmela Marino
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-01898-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Systematic Reviews 1/2022 Go to the issue