Table 2 Summary of nine studies on glioma and use of wireless telephones.

Study		Period covered		Study type		Age (years)		Tumour type		No. of cases		OR* (95% CI)		Comments
Inskip et al 2001, USA5		1994–1998		Case–control		⩾18		Glioma		11		0.6 (0.3 to 1.4)		⩾5 years of cell phone use
Auvinen et al 2002, Finland7		1996		Case–control, register‐based		20–69		Glioma		119		1.5 (1.0 to 2.4)		Analogue and digital cell phone “ever” use
										40		2.1 (1.3 to 3.4)		Analogue cell phone “ever” use
										11		2.4 (1.2 to 5.1)		Analogue cell phone use 1–2 years
										11		2.0 (1.0 to 4.1)		Analogue cell phone use, >2 years
Lönn et al 2005, Sweden Interphone10		2000–2002		Case–control		20–69		Glioma		214		0.8 (0.6 to 1.0)		Regular use
										15		1.6 (0.8 to 3.4)		⩾10 years since first “regular” cell phone use on same side of head as tumour
										11		0.7 (0.3 to 1.5)		⩾10 years since first “regular” cell phone use on opposite side of head as tumour.
Christensen et al 2005 Denmark Interphone12		2000–2002		Case–control		20–69		Low‐grade glioma		47		1.1 (0.6 to 2.0)		Regular use
										6		1.6 (0.4 to 6.1)		⩾10 years since first “regular” use of cell phone
								High‐grade glioma		59		0.6 (0.4 to 0.9)		Regular use
										8		0.5 (0.2 to 1.3)		⩾10 years since first regular use of cell phone
														17 ORs for high‐grade glioma, all <1.0, indicate systematic bias.
Hepworth et al 2006 UK Interphone13		2000–2004		Case–control		18–69		Glioma		508		0.9 (0.8 to 1.1)		Regular use
										Not given		1.6 (0.9 to 2.8)		⩾10 years of cell phone use on same side of head as tumour.
										Not given		0.8 (0.4 to 1.4)		>10 years of cell phone use on opposite side of head as tumour.
Schüz et al 2006 Germany Interphone14		2000–2003		Case–control		30–59 (2000–2001), 30–69 (2001–2003)		Glioma		138		1.0 (0.7 to 1.3)		Regular use
										12		2.2 (0.9 to 5.1)		⩾10 years since first “regular” use of cell phone
										30		2.0 (1.1 to 3.5)		Female regular use of cell phone (glioma, high‐grade)
Hardell et al 2006b, Sweden16		1997–2003		Case–control		20–80		Glioma, high‐grade		281		1.4 (1.1 to 1.8)		>1‐year latency of cell phone use
										71		3.1 (2.0 to 4.6)		>10‐year latency of cell phone use
										39		5.4 (3.0 to 9.6)		>10‐year latency of ipsilateral cell phone use
										23		2.2 (1.3 to 3.9)		>10‐year latency of cordless phone use
										10		4.7 (1.8 to 13)		>10‐year latency of ipsilateral cordless phone use
								Glioma, low‐grade		65		1.4 (0.9 to 2.3)		>1‐year latency of cell phone use
										7		1.5 (0.6 to 3.8)		>10‐year latency of cell phone use
										2		1.2 (0.3 to 5.8)		>10‐year latency of ipsilateral cell phone use
										5		1.6 (0.5 to 4.6)		>10‐year latency of cordless phone use
										3		3.2 (0.6 to 16)		>10‐year latency of ipsilateral cordless phone use
Schüz et al 2006, Denmark17		1982–2002		Cohort		⩾18		Glioma		257		SIR = 1.0 (0.9 to 1.1)		No laterality of tumour and mobile phone given
										54		SIR = 1.2 (0.9 to 1.6)		Temporal lobe
Lahkola et al Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, UK Interphone19		September 2000–February 2004 (differed between countries)		Case–control		20–69 (Nordic countries), 18–59 (UK)		Glioma		867		0.8 (0.7 to 0.9)		Regular use
										77		1.4 (1.01 to 1.9)		Ipsilateral mobile phone use, ⩾10 years since first use, p for trend = 0.04

SIR, standardised incidence ratio.

*Unless otherwise stated.