Note: This study found no significant biological effects under its experimental conditions. We include all studies for scientific completeness.
Int J Radiat Biol 98(5):986-995, 2022
No Effects Found
Authors not listed · 2022
This clinical audit of cancer treatment protocols was incorrectly categorized as EMF research.
Plain English Summary
Summary written for general audiences
This study is a clinical audit of chemoradiotherapy treatment for anal cancer patients, not an EMF research study. It reviewed treatment quality indicators and timing at a Welsh medical center between 2016-2021. The study found generally good adherence to treatment protocols with low complication rates.
Cite This Study
Unknown (2022). Int J Radiat Biol 98(5):986-995, 2022.
Show BibTeX
@article{int_j_radiat_biol_985986_995_2022_ce3544,
author = {Unknown},
title = {Int J Radiat Biol 98(5):986-995, 2022},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1016/j.clon.2022.09.008},
}Quick Questions About This Study
This appears to be a database categorization error. The study examines chemoradiotherapy treatment protocols for anal cancer patients, not electromagnetic field exposure effects. It belongs in oncology literature, not EMF research databases.
No, chemoradiotherapy uses high-energy ionizing radiation to destroy cancer cells, which is fundamentally different from the low-energy non-ionizing electromagnetic fields emitted by wireless devices that EMF health research typically studies.
The audit tracked seven quality indicators for anal cancer treatment including CT scan timing, treatment start dates, completion rates, and complication rates. It found 95% of patients received timely care with low mortality rates.
The audit reviewed 80 anal cancer patients who received curative chemoradiotherapy treatment at the Welsh medical center between 2016 and 2021, with data collected from October to December 2021.
The study found 96.3% of patients started treatment within 28 days, 92.5% completed chemotherapy without interruptions, and both colostomy and 30-day mortality rates were only 1.2% each, indicating successful treatment protocols.