Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a critical review of explanatory hypotheses

PAPER manual 2020 Review Effect: unclear Evidence: Insufficient

Read original paper → DOI: 10.1186/s12940-020-00602-0 Evidence Lab

Abstract

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a critical review of explanatory hypotheses Dieudonné M. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a critical review of explanatory hypotheses. Environ Health. 2020 May 6;19(1):48. doi: 10.1186/s12940-020-00602-0. Abstract BACKGROUND: Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is a condition defined by the attribution of non-specific symptoms to electromagnetic fields (EMF) of anthropogenic origin. Despite its repercussions on the lives of its sufferers, and its potential to become a significant public health issue, it remains of a contested nature. Different hypotheses have been proposed to explain the origin of symptoms experienced by self-declared EHS persons, which this article aims to review. METHODS: As EHS is a multi-dimensional problem, and its explanatory hypotheses have far-reaching implications, a broad view was adopted, not restricted to EHS literature but encompassing all relevant bodies of research on related topics. This could only be achieved through a narrative approach. Two strategies were used to identify pertinent references. Concerning EHS, a complete bibliography was extracted from a 2018 report from the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety and updated with more recent studies. Concerning related topics, the appropriate databases were searched. Systematic reviews and expert reports were favored when available. FINDINGS: Three main explanatory hypotheses appear in the literature: (1) the electromagnetic hypothesis, attributing EHS to EMF exposure; (2) the cognitive hypothesis, assuming that EHS results from false beliefs in EMF harmfulness, promoting nocebo responses to perceived EMF exposure; (3) the attributive hypothesis, conceiving EHS as a coping strategy for pre-existing conditions. These hypotheses are successively assessed, considering both their strengths and limitations, by comparing their theoretical, experimental, and ecological value. CONCLUSION: No hypothesis proves totally satisfying. Avenues of research are suggested to help decide between them and reach a better understanding of EHS. Open access paper: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

AI evidence extraction

At a glance

Study type

Review

Effect direction

unclear

Population

Self-declared electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) persons (general)

Sample size

—

Exposure

anthropogenic EMF (general)

Evidence strength

Insufficient

Confidence: 74% · Peer-reviewed: yes

Main findings

The review identifies three main explanatory hypotheses for EHS (electromagnetic, cognitive/nocebo, and attributive/coping) and assesses their strengths and limitations; it concludes that no single hypothesis is fully satisfying and suggests research avenues to better discriminate between them.

Outcomes measured

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) symptoms attribution and explanatory hypotheses (electromagnetic, cognitive/nocebo, attributive/coping)

Limitations

Narrative (non-systematic) review approach
Broad scope across multiple related research bodies; specific inclusion/exclusion criteria not detailed in abstract
No quantitative synthesis reported in abstract

View raw extracted JSON

{
    "study_type": "review",
    "exposure": {
        "band": null,
        "source": "anthropogenic EMF (general)",
        "frequency_mhz": null,
        "sar_wkg": null,
        "duration": null
    },
    "population": "Self-declared electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) persons (general)",
    "sample_size": null,
    "outcomes": [
        "Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) symptoms attribution and explanatory hypotheses (electromagnetic, cognitive/nocebo, attributive/coping)"
    ],
    "main_findings": "The review identifies three main explanatory hypotheses for EHS (electromagnetic, cognitive/nocebo, and attributive/coping) and assesses their strengths and limitations; it concludes that no single hypothesis is fully satisfying and suggests research avenues to better discriminate between them.",
    "effect_direction": "unclear",
    "limitations": [
        "Narrative (non-systematic) review approach",
        "Broad scope across multiple related research bodies; specific inclusion/exclusion criteria not detailed in abstract",
        "No quantitative synthesis reported in abstract"
    ],
    "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
    "confidence": 0.7399999999999999911182158029987476766109466552734375,
    "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
    "keywords": [
        "electromagnetic hypersensitivity",
        "EHS",
        "EMF",
        "nocebo",
        "cognitive hypothesis",
        "attribution",
        "coping strategy",
        "review"
    ],
    "suggested_hubs": []
}

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

No comments yet.