Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Dr Ryan KennyORCiD, Eugenie Johnson, Adenike AdesanyaORCiD, Catherine Richmond, Fiona Beyer, Professor Judith Rankin, Professor Mark PearceORCiD, Professor Dawn CraigORCiD, Dr Fiona Pearson
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
© 2024 The Authors. Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) is bringing together evidence on radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure in relation to health outcomes, previously identified as priorities for research and evaluation by experts in the field, to inform exposure guidelines. A suite of systematic reviews have been undertaken by a network of topic experts and methodologists to collect, assess and synthesise data relevant to these guidelines. Following the WHO handbook for guideline development and the COSTER conduct guidelines, we systematically reviewed the evidence on the potential effects of RF-EMF exposure on male fertility in human observational studies. Methods: We conducted a broad and sensitive search for potentially relevant records within the following bibliographic databases: MEDLINE; Embase; Web of Science and EMF Portal. We also conducted searches of grey literature through relevant databases including OpenGrey, and organisational websites and consulted RF-EMF experts. We hand searched reference lists of included study records and for citations of these studies. We included quantitative human observational studies on the effect of RF-EMF exposure in adult male participants on infertility: sperm concentration; sperm morphology; sperm total motility; sperm progressive motility; total sperm count; and time to pregnancy. Titles and abstracts followed by full texts were screened in blinded duplicate against pre-set eligibility criteria with consensus input from a third reviewer as required. Data extraction from included studies was completed by two reviewers, as was risk of bias assessment using the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) tool. We conducted a dose–response meta-analysis as possible and appropriate. Certainty of the evidence was assessed by two reviewers using the OHAT GRADE tool with input from a third reviewer as required. Results: We identified nine studies in this review; seven were general public studies (with the general public as the population of interest) and two were occupational studies (with specific workers/workforces as the population of interest). General public studies. Duration of phone use: The evidence is very uncertain surrounding the effects of RF-EMF on sperm concentration (10/6 mL) (MD (mean difference) per hour of daily phone use 1.6 106/mL, 95 % CI −1.7 to 4.9; 3 studies), sperm morphology (MD 0.15 percentage points of deviation of normal forms per hour, 95 % CI −0.21 to 0.51; 3 studies), sperm progressive motility (MD −0.46 percentage points per hour, 95 % CI −1.04 to 0.13; 2 studies) and total sperm count (MD per hour −0.44 106/ejaculate, 95 % CI −2.59 to 1.7; 2 studies) due to very low-certainty evidence. Four additional studies reported on the effect of mobile phone use on sperm motility but were unsuitable for pooling; only one of these studies identified a statistically significant effect. All four studies were at risk of exposure characterisation and selection bias; two of confounding, selective reporting and attrition bias; three of outcome assessment bias and one used an inappropriate statistical method. Position of phone: There may be no or little effect of carrying a mobile phone in the front pocket on sperm concentration, total count, morphology, progressive motility or on time to pregnancy. Of three studies reporting on the effect of mobile phone location on sperm total motility and, or, total motile count, one showed a statistically significant effect. All three studies were at risk of exposure characterisation and selection bias; two of confounding, selective reporting and attrition bias; three of outcome assessment bias and one used inappropriate statistical method. RF-EMF Source: One study indicates there may be little or no effect of computer or other electric device use on sperm concentration, total motility or total count. This study is at probably high risk of exposure characterisation bias and outcome assessment bias. Occupational studies. With only two studies of occupational exposure to RF-EMF and heterogeneity in the population and exposure source (technicians exposed to microwaves or seamen exposed to radar equipment), it was not plausible to statistically pool findings. One study was at probably or definitely high risk of bias across all domains, the other across domains for exposure characterisation bias, outcome assessment bias and confounding. Discussion: The majority of evidence identified was assessing localised RF-EMF exposure from mobile phone use on male fertility with few studies assessing the impact of phone position. Overall, the evidence identified is very uncertain about the effect of RF-EMF exposure from mobile phones on sperm outcomes. One study assessed the impact of other RF-EMF sources on male fertility amongst the general public and two studies assessed the impact of RF-EMF exposure in occupational cohorts from different sources (radar or microwave) on male fertility. Further prospective studies conducted with greater rigour (in particular, improved accuracy of exposure measurement and appropriate statistical method use) would build the existing evidence base and are required to have greater certainty in any potential effects of RF-EMF on male reproductive outcomes. Prospero Registration: CRD42021265401 (SR3A)
Author(s): Kenny RPW, Johnson EE, Adesanya AM, Richmond C, Beyer F, Calderon C, Rankin J, Pearce MS, Toledano M, Craig D, Pearson F
Publication type: Article
Publication status: Published
Journal: Environment International
Year: 2024
Volume: 190
Print publication date: 01/08/2024
Online publication date: 11/06/2024
Acceptance date: 10/06/2024
Date deposited: 25/06/2024
ISSN (print): 0160-4120
ISSN (electronic): 1873-6750
Publisher: Elsevier Ltd
URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108817
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.108817
Altmetrics provided by Altmetric
