8,700 Studies Reviewed. 87.0% Found Biological Effects. The Evidence is Clear.
Shield Your Body
Whole Body / General1,560 citations

This review presents the findings of more than 100 studies that were published in reputable scientific journals

Bioeffects Seen

Authors not listed · 2017

View Original Abstract
Share:

Large-scale research reviews are only valuable when they provide specific, transparent details about methodology and findings.

Plain English Summary

Summary written for general audiences

This appears to be a meta-analysis or review examining findings from over 100 studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, though specific details about the research focus, methodology, and conclusions are not provided in the available information. Without access to the actual study content, the scope and significance of the findings cannot be determined.

Why This Matters

The lack of specific information about this purported review of 100+ studies highlights a critical issue in EMF research communication. While large-scale reviews and meta-analyses represent the gold standard for evaluating scientific evidence, their value depends entirely on transparent methodology and clear reporting of findings. The science demonstrates that meaningful conclusions about EMF health effects require detailed information about exposure parameters, biological endpoints, and study quality. What this means for you is that when evaluating EMF research claims, always look for specific details about frequency ranges, exposure levels, duration, and biological effects studied. Without this fundamental information, even reviews of hundreds of studies cannot inform your understanding of potential health risks or guide your exposure decisions.

Exposure Information

Specific exposure levels were not quantified in this study.

Cite This Study
Unknown (2017). This review presents the findings of more than 100 studies that were published in reputable scientific journals.
Show BibTeX
@article{this_review_presents_the_findings_of_more_than_100_studies_that_were_published_in_reputable_scientific_journals_ce4826,
  author = {Unknown},
  title = {This review presents the findings of more than 100 studies that were published in reputable scientific journals},
  year = {2017},
  doi = {10.28945/479},
  url = {http://www.diagnose-funk.org/publikationen/artikel/detail&newsid=1242},
}
DOI: 10.28945/479

Quick Questions About This Study

Credible reviews must specify inclusion criteria, detail methodology, report effect sizes, assess study quality, and clearly state conclusions. Without these elements, even large reviews cannot reliably inform health decisions or policy.
Look for specific details about frequency ranges studied, exposure levels tested, biological endpoints measured, and quality assessment methods. Reviews without these specifics cannot provide meaningful guidance about EMF health effects.
Poor reporting may result from inadequate peer review, industry influence, or researchers failing to follow established scientific reporting standards. Always seek studies with complete methodology and transparent conflict-of-interest disclosures.
Essential elements include search strategy, inclusion criteria, quality assessment methods, statistical analysis approach, heterogeneity evaluation, and clear presentation of pooled results with confidence intervals and practical significance.
Incomplete reporting prevents proper risk assessment, allows selective interpretation of results, and undermines evidence-based policy development. Regulatory agencies require complete data to establish appropriate exposure guidelines and safety standards.