You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Mobile phone use and glioma risk: comparison of epidemiological study results with incidence trends in the United States
M P Little, P Rajaraman, R E Curtis, S S Devesa, P D Inskip, D P Check and M S Linei
BMJ: British Medical Journal
Vol. 344, No. 7849 (24 March 2012), p. 20
Published by: BMJ
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41551635
Page Count: 1
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Disease risks, Glioma, Cell phones, Interphones, Epidemiologic studies, Epidemiology
Were these topics helpful?See somethings inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Preview not available
STUDY QUESTION How do observed trends in glioma incidence in the United States compare with predicted rates based on two recent reports of increased risk of glioma in relation to mobile phone use? SUMMARY ANSWER The relatively constant rate of glioma during a period of rising exposure to mobile phones is inconsistent with the substantially increased risk of glioma reported by a 2011 Swedish study, but could be consistent with modest excess risks seen in the 2010 Interphone study. WHAT IS KNOWN AND WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS The International Agency for Research on Cancer recently classified mobile phone exposure as a possible human carcinogen in relation to brain tumour risk, on the basis of two epidemiological studies, a 2011 Swedish study by Hardell et al and the 2010 Interphone study. Our analysis indicates that observed rates in the US are inconsistent with relative risks reported by Hardell et al but could be consistent with the modest excess risks reported in the Interphone study.
BMJ: British Medical Journal © 2012 BMJ