Share
𝕏 Facebook LinkedIn

Mobile phone electromagnetic radiation and the risk of headache: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PAPER manual International archives of occupational and environmental health 2022 Meta-analysis Effect: harm Evidence: High

Abstract

Mobile phone electromagnetic radiation and the risk of headache: a systematic review and meta-analysis Sajjad Farashi, Saeid Bashirian, Salman Khazaei, Mojtaba Khazaei, Abdollah Farhadinasab. Mobile phone electromagnetic radiation and the risk of headache: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2022 Jan 22. doi: 10.1007/s00420-022-01835-x. Abstract Purpose: The effects of electromagnetic fields of mobile phones on headaches have attracted researchers during the last decades. However, contradictory results have been reported so far. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, major databases including PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science were searched using suitable search terms and PRISMA guidelines to retrieve eligible studies for the effect of mobile phone use on headache. After the abstract and full-text screening, 33 studies were retrieved and the effect size in terms of odds ratio (OR) was extracted. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistic and Q test, while publication bias was evaluated by funnel plot and Egger's and Begg's tests. Results: Among 33 eligible studies, 30 eligible studies were included in the meta-analysis. When considering all studies, the pooled effect size of OR = 1.30 (95% CI 1.21-1.39) was obtained, while the heterogeneity between studies was significant. Subgroup analyses by considering the age of participants and EMF exposure duration were performed to find the source of heterogeneity. The odds ratios when the age of participants was the variable were 1.33 (95% CI 1.14-1.53) and 1.29 (95% CI 1.20-1.37), for ages > 18 and age ≤ 18 years, respectively. When EMF exposure duration was considered, subgroup analysis obtained the pooled effect size of OR = 1.41 (95% CI 1.22-1.61) and 1.23 (95% CI 1.12-1.34), for EMF exposure duration > 100 and ≤ 100 minutes per week, respectively. The pooled effect sizes emphasized the effect of mobile phone use on headaches for all ages and exposure durations. Conclusion: Results revealed that age and exposure duration (mainly call duration), both were the source of heterogeneity between studies. Furthermore, results showed that increasing call duration and mobile phone use in older individuals increased the risk of headache. Conclusion Since the mobile phone becomes an indispensable device for many people, its effects on human health have been the center of attention during past decades. The current study focused on the effect of mobile phone- emitted EMFs on headaches as a common problem between children and adults. Results showed the adverse effect of mobile phones on headaches for young and adult individuals. Results showed that increasing EMF exposure (mainly call duration) augmented such effects. Furthermore, the results of studies were more homogeneous for the older population (age > 18 years) as compared with the younger group (age ≤ 18 years). In this study, all types of headaches were considered in a unique category, while their brain mechanisms might be different. In this regard, electromagnetic radiation emitted by mobile phones may influence different types of headaches in different ways. In addition, exposure time (duration in which individuals used mobile phones) is another important factor that is relatively different between included studies in this meta-analysis. These issues might be responsible for between-study heterogeneity observed in the current study. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

AI evidence extraction

At a glance
Study type
Meta-analysis
Effect direction
harm
Population
Children and adults (age ≤18 and >18 years) across included studies
Sample size
Exposure
RF mobile phone · Call duration / mobile phone use; subgrouped as >100 vs ≤100 minutes per week
Evidence strength
High
Confidence: 86% · Peer-reviewed: yes

Main findings

This systematic review/meta-analysis included 33 eligible studies (30 in meta-analysis) and reported a pooled odds ratio of 1.30 (95% CI 1.21–1.39) for headache associated with mobile phone use, with significant heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses reported elevated odds for both age groups (>18: OR 1.33; ≤18: OR 1.29) and for both exposure-duration categories (>100 min/week: OR 1.41; ≤100 min/week: OR 1.23). The authors concluded that increasing call duration and mobile phone use in older individuals increased headache risk and that age and exposure duration contributed to heterogeneity.

Outcomes measured

  • Headache (all types grouped)

Limitations

  • Significant between-study heterogeneity was reported.
  • All headache types were combined into a single outcome category despite potentially different mechanisms.
  • Exposure time/use duration differed across included studies, which may contribute to heterogeneity.
  • Specific exposure metrics (e.g., frequency, SAR) were not described in the abstract.

Suggested hubs

  • cell-phones (0.95)
    Focuses on mobile phone EMF exposure and health outcome (headache).
View raw extracted JSON
{
    "publication_year": 2022,
    "study_type": "meta_analysis",
    "exposure": {
        "band": "RF",
        "source": "mobile phone",
        "frequency_mhz": null,
        "sar_wkg": null,
        "duration": "Call duration / mobile phone use; subgrouped as >100 vs ≤100 minutes per week"
    },
    "population": "Children and adults (age ≤18 and >18 years) across included studies",
    "sample_size": null,
    "outcomes": [
        "Headache (all types grouped)"
    ],
    "main_findings": "This systematic review/meta-analysis included 33 eligible studies (30 in meta-analysis) and reported a pooled odds ratio of 1.30 (95% CI 1.21–1.39) for headache associated with mobile phone use, with significant heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses reported elevated odds for both age groups (>18: OR 1.33; ≤18: OR 1.29) and for both exposure-duration categories (>100 min/week: OR 1.41; ≤100 min/week: OR 1.23). The authors concluded that increasing call duration and mobile phone use in older individuals increased headache risk and that age and exposure duration contributed to heterogeneity.",
    "effect_direction": "harm",
    "limitations": [
        "Significant between-study heterogeneity was reported.",
        "All headache types were combined into a single outcome category despite potentially different mechanisms.",
        "Exposure time/use duration differed across included studies, which may contribute to heterogeneity.",
        "Specific exposure metrics (e.g., frequency, SAR) were not described in the abstract."
    ],
    "evidence_strength": "high",
    "confidence": 0.85999999999999998667732370449812151491641998291015625,
    "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
    "stance": "concern",
    "stance_confidence": 0.7800000000000000266453525910037569701671600341796875,
    "summary": "This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed whether mobile phone-emitted electromagnetic fields are associated with headache. Across 30 studies included in the meta-analysis, the pooled estimate suggested higher odds of headache with mobile phone use, with significant heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses indicated elevated odds in both adults and children and for both shorter and longer weekly use durations, with higher estimates for longer use.",
    "key_points": [
        "The review followed PRISMA and searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science.",
        "Thirty-three studies were eligible and 30 were included in the meta-analysis.",
        "The pooled analysis reported increased odds of headache associated with mobile phone use (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.21–1.39).",
        "Heterogeneity between studies was significant, and subgroup analyses were used to explore sources.",
        "Elevated odds were reported for both age groups (>18 and ≤18 years).",
        "Higher pooled odds were reported for longer weekly exposure duration (>100 minutes/week) than for ≤100 minutes/week.",
        "The authors noted that grouping all headache types together may obscure differences between headache mechanisms."
    ],
    "categories": [
        "Human studies",
        "Systematic reviews & meta-analyses",
        "Mobile & wireless",
        "Symptoms & well-being"
    ],
    "tags": [
        "Mobile Phones",
        "Radiofrequency Exposure",
        "Headache",
        "Systematic Review",
        "Meta-Analysis",
        "Call Duration",
        "Children",
        "Adults",
        "PRISMA"
    ],
    "keywords": [
        "mobile phone",
        "electromagnetic fields",
        "electromagnetic radiation",
        "radiofrequency",
        "headache",
        "systematic review",
        "meta-analysis",
        "odds ratio",
        "call duration",
        "exposure duration",
        "heterogeneity",
        "PRISMA"
    ],
    "suggested_hubs": [
        {
            "slug": "cell-phones",
            "weight": 0.9499999999999999555910790149937383830547332763671875,
            "reason": "Focuses on mobile phone EMF exposure and health outcome (headache)."
        }
    ],
    "social": {
        "tweet": "Meta-analysis (30 studies) reported higher odds of headache with mobile phone use (pooled OR 1.30), with higher estimates for longer weekly call duration and significant heterogeneity.",
        "facebook": "A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis found increased odds of headache associated with mobile phone use across included studies, with subgroup analyses suggesting higher estimates with longer weekly call duration and differences by age.",
        "linkedin": "Systematic review/meta-analysis (Int Arch Occup Environ Health, 2022) pooled 30 studies and reported increased odds of headache with mobile phone use (OR 1.30), with significant heterogeneity and higher estimates for longer weekly exposure duration."
    }
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract/metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This content is for informational purposes only and is not medical advice.

Comments

Log in to comment.

No comments yet.