» Articles » PMID: 28535174

Probabilistic Multiple-Bias Modeling Applied to the Canadian Data From the Interphone Study of Mobile Phone Use and Risk of Glioma, Meningioma, Acoustic Neuroma, and Parotid Gland Tumors

Overview
Journal Am J Epidemiol
Specialty Public Health
Date 2017 May 24
PMID 28535174
Citations 15
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

We undertook a re-analysis of the Canadian data from the 13-country case-control Interphone Study (2001-2004), in which researchers evaluated the associations of mobile phone use with the risks of brain, acoustic neuroma, and parotid gland tumors. In the main publication of the multinational Interphone Study, investigators concluded that biases and errors prevented a causal interpretation. We applied a probabilistic multiple-bias model to address possible biases simultaneously, using validation data from billing records and nonparticipant questionnaires as information on recall error and selective participation. In our modeling, we sought to adjust for these sources of uncertainty and to facilitate interpretation. For glioma, when comparing those in the highest quartile of use (>558 lifetime hours) to those who were not regular users, the odds ratio was 2.0 (95% confidence interval: 1.2, 3.4). After adjustment for selection and recall biases, the odds ratio was 2.2 (95% limits: 1.3, 4.1). There was little evidence of an increase in the risk of meningioma, acoustic neuroma, or parotid gland tumors in relation to mobile phone use. Adjustments for selection and recall biases did not materially affect interpretation in our results from Canadian data.

Citing Articles

Regression calibration of self-reported mobile phone use to optimize quantitative risk estimation in the COSMOS study.

Reedijk M, Portengen L, Auvinen A, Kojo K, Heinavaara S, Feychting M Am J Epidemiol. 2024; 193(10):1482-1493.

PMID: 38751312 PMC: 11458186. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwae039.


Effect of alcohol consumption on breast cancer: probabilistic bias analysis for adjustment of exposure misclassification bias and confounders.

Pakzad R, Nedjat S, Salehiniya H, Mansournia N, Etminan M, Nazemipour M BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023; 23(1):157.

PMID: 37403100 PMC: 10318777. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-023-01978-6.


Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G.

Environ Health. 2022; 21(1):92.

PMID: 36253855 PMC: 9576312. DOI: 10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9.


Human Health Risk Assessment of 4-12 GHz Radar Waves using CST STUDIO SUITE Software.

Fereidouni F, Mohammadi S, Faramarzi Shahraki V, Jahantigh F J Biomed Phys Eng. 2022; 12(3):285-296.

PMID: 35698536 PMC: 9175128. DOI: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.1272.


Human‑made electromagnetic fields: Ion forced‑oscillation and voltage‑gated ion channel dysfunction, oxidative stress and DNA damage (Review).

Panagopoulos D, Karabarbounis A, Yakymenko I, Chrousos G Int J Oncol. 2021; 59(5).

PMID: 34617575 PMC: 8562392. DOI: 10.3892/ijo.2021.5272.


References
1.
. Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. Int J Epidemiol. 2010; 39(3):675-94. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyq079. View

2.
Repacholi M, Lerchl A, Roosli M, Sienkiewicz Z, Auvinen A, Breckenkamp J . Systematic review of wireless phone use and brain cancer and other head tumors. Bioelectromagnetics. 2011; 33(3):187-206. DOI: 10.1002/bem.20716. View

3.
Cardis E, Armstrong B, Bowman J, Giles G, Hours M, Krewski D . Risk of brain tumours in relation to estimated RF dose from mobile phones: results from five Interphone countries. Occup Environ Med. 2011; 68(9):631-40. PMC: 3158328. DOI: 10.1136/oemed-2011-100155. View

4.
Maclure M, Hankinson S . Analysis of selection bias in a case-control study of renal adenocarcinoma. Epidemiology. 1990; 1(6):441-7. DOI: 10.1097/00001648-199011000-00005. View

5.
Lahkola A, Salminen T, Auvinen A . Selection bias due to differential participation in a case-control study of mobile phone use and brain tumors. Ann Epidemiol. 2005; 15(5):321-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2004.12.009. View