Table 1 Summary of epidemiological studies relating to mobile phone handset use.
| Country | Year | Phone* | No. cases | OR (95% CI) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glioma | |||||
| Denmark†3 | 2005 | G | 171 | 0.58 (0.37 to 0.9)‡ | High grade |
| 81 | 1.1 (0.58 to 2) | Low grade | |||
| Sweden†4 | 2005 | G | 371 | 0.8 (0.6 to 1) | |
| Finland5 | 2002 | G+A | 198 | 1.5 (1.0 to 2.4) | 2.1 (1.3 to 3.4)§ ** |
| Menigioma | |||||
| Denmark†3 | 2005 | G | 175 | 1.0 (0.54 to 1.3) | |
| Sweden†4 | 2005 | G | 273 | 0.7 (0.5 to 0.9)‡ | |
| Sweden6 | 2005 | A | 35 | 1.7 (1.0 to 3.0) | G and C: NS |
| Acoustic neuroma | |||||
| Denmark†7 | 2004 | G | 106 | 0.9 (0.51 to 1.6) | |
| Sweden†8 | 2004 | G | 148 | 1.0 (0.6 to 1.5) | 3.9 (1.6 to 10)§ †† |
| Sweden6 | 2005 | A | 20 | 4.2 (1.8 to 10)§ | G and C: NS§ |
| USA9 | 2002 | G | 90 | 0.9 (0.4 to 1.3) | Higher OR on contralateral side |
| Pooled UK+Nordic†10¶ | 2005 | A+G | 678 | 0.9 (0.7 to 1.2) | 1.8 (1.1 to 3.1)†† and >10 years use§ |
| Uveal melanoma | |||||
| Germany 11 | 2001 | U | 118 | 4.2 (1.2 to 15)§ | Based on ∼6 cases reporting phone use |
| Salivary gland cancer | |||||
| Finland5 | 2002 | G+A | 34 | 1.3 (0.4 to 4.7) | |
| Brain tumour (all) | |||||
| Finland5 | 2002 | G+A | 398 | 1.3 (0.9 to 1.8) | Inc. glioma data |
| Sweden12 | 2002 | U | 1429 | 1.3 (1 to 1.6) | 0.9 (0.8 to 1.2)‡‡ |
| Sweden13 | 2001 | U | 233 | 2.4 (1.0 to 6) | Ipsilateral exposure |
| USA14 | 2000 | U | 469 | 0.85 (0.6 to 1.2) | |
| USA15 | 2001 | U | 782 | 1.0 (0.6 to 1.5) |
*Phone type indicated thus: A: analog; C: cordless; G: GSM (digital); U: unspecified or pooled; †indicates data forming part of the Interphone project; ‡odds ratios (OR) significantly low; §OR significantly high; ¶includes data from the Danish and Swedish studies7,8; **OR (95% CI) for a subset of data for analog (A) phones; ††OR (95% CI) for a subset of data with tumour ipsilateral to normal side of phone use; ‡‡OR (95% CI) for a subset of data for subjects in urban areas: for rural area OR higher.
In several of these studies multiple sub‐analyses on particular conditions of exposure have also been reported. The number of cases in each study often does not relate to the OR estimate quoted, since the definition of a frequent user varies between studies. CI, confidence interval.