Background: Everyday exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) emitted from wireless devices such as mobile phones and base stations, radio and television transmitters is ubiquitous. Some people attribute non-specific physical symptoms (NSPS) such as headache and fatigue to exposure to RF-EMF. Most previous laboratory studies or studies that analyzed populations at a group level did not find evidence of an association between RF-EMF exposure and NSPS. Objectives: We explored the association between exposure to RF-EMF in daily life and the occurrence of NSPS in individual self-declared electro hypersensitive persons using body worn exposimeters and electronic diaries. Methods: We selected seven individuals who attributed their NSPS to RF-EMF exposure. The level of and variability in personal RF-EMF exposure and NSPS were determined during a three-week period. Data were analyzed using timeseries analysis in which exposure as measured and recorded in the diary was correlated with NSPS. Results: We found statistically significant correlations between perceived and actual exposure to wireless internet (WiFi - rate of change and number of peaks above threshold) and base stations for mobile telecommunications (GSM+UMTS downlink, rate of change) and NSPS scores in four of the seven participants. In two persons a higher EMF exposure was associated with higher symptom scores, and in two other persons it was associated with lower scores. Remarkably, we found no significant correlations between NSPS and timeweighted average power density, the most commonly used exposure metric. Conclusions: RF-EMFexposure was associated either positively or negatively with NSP Sinsome but not all of the selected self-declared electro hypersensitive persons. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.08.064
MULTIFILE
The main objective of the study is to determine if non-specific physical symptoms (NSPS) in people with self-declared sensitivity to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMF) can be explained (across subjects) by exposure to RF EMF. Furthermore, we pioneered whether analysis at the individual level or at the group level may lead to different conclusions. By our knowledge, this is the first longitudinal study exploring the data at the individual level. A group of 57 participants was equipped with a measurement set for five consecutive days. The measurement set consisted of a body worn exposimeter measuring the radiofrequency electromagnetic field in twelve frequency bands used for communication, a GPS logger, and an electronic diary giving cues at random intervals within a two to three hour interval. At every cue, a questionnaire on the most important health complaint and nine NSPS had to be filled out. We analysed the (time-lagged) associations between RF-EMF exposure in the included frequency bands and the total number of NSPS and self-rated severity of the most important health complaint. The manifestation of NSPS was studied during two different time lags - 0–1 h, and 1–4 h - after exposure and for different exposure metrics of RF EMF. The exposure was characterised by exposure metrics describing the central tendency and the intermittency of the signal, i.e. the time-weighted average exposure, the time above an exposure level or the rate of change metric. At group level, there was no statistically significant and relevant (fixed effect) association between the measured personal exposure to RF EMF and NSPS. At individual level, after correction for multiple testing and confounding, we found significant within-person associations between WiFi (the self-declared most important source) exposure metrics and the total NSPS score and severity of the most important complaint in one participant. However, it cannot be ruled out that this association is explained by residual confounding due to imperfect control for location or activities. Therefore, the outcomes have to be regarded very prudently. The significant associations were found for the short and the long time lag, but not always concurrently, so both provide complementary information. We also conclude that analyses at the individual level can lead to different findings when compared to an analysis at group level. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.104948 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-bolte-0856134/
MULTIFILE
The general aim of this dissertation is to gain insight into the physiotherapeutic validity of physiotherapy research in subjects with non-specific neck pain. Chapter 1 describes the background of the research and the research questions and gives an overview of the studies performed. Chapter 2 presents the results of a systematic review (SR) of the completeness of the clinical reasoning process within the methodology of the RCT in patients with non-specific neck pain. For the SR analysis 122 studies were included. In the majority of studies (70%) the described clinical reasoning process was incomplete. There was scarcely any association between the degree of risk of bias and the completeness of the clinical reasoning process, indicating that better methodological quality does not necessarily imply a better description of clinical reasoning process. Chapter 3 presents the results of a SR in which we sought to identify published classification systems with a targeted treatment approach (treatment-based classification systems (TBCSs)) for patients with non-specific neck pain. Thirteen TBCSs were identified. In conclusion, existing treatment-based classification systems are of moderate quality at best. Moreover, these systems were not more effective than alternative treatments. Therefore, we do not recommend the use of these systems in daily physiotherapy practice. Chapter 4 describes a Delphi study of the clinical reasoning process of physiotherapy experts in unimodal interventions in patients with non-specific neck pain. This study had three goals. First, we aimed explore the expert opinions on the indication for physiotherapy when, other than neck pain, there are no positive signs and symptoms, no positive diagnostic tests or complaints of limitations in functioning or restrictions in participation. Second, we focused on the experts' use of measurement tools and when they are used to support and objectify the clinical reasoning process. Finally, we wanted to reach consensus among experts on the use of unimodal interventions in patients with non-specific neck pain. According to all experts, pain alone was not considered to be an indication for physiotherapy. Patient reported outcome measures were mainly used for evaluative purposes and physical tests for diagnostic and evaluative purposes. Only 6 of the 18 variants of sequential linear clinical reasoning reached a consensus of more than 50%. Chapter 5 describes a review that examined the completeness of the description of manipulation and mobilization interventions in randomized controlled trials of subjects with non-specific neck pain. In conclusion, mobilization or manipulation interventions are poorly reported in RCTs, compromising the external validity of RCTs, making it difficult for clinicians and researchers to replicate these interventions. Chapter 6 investigated the diagnostic physiotherapeutic process regarding limited ROM of the neck. It can be concluded that the overall diagnostic accuracy of physical examination is limited (compared to the CROM measurement). Therefore, a measurement device should be used in daily physical therapy practice to assess if a movement direction is restricted. Chapter 7 describes an exploratory, practice-oriented study into matched treatments in patients with non-specific neck pain. The objective of this study was 1) to establish the measurement error of the used accelerometer; 2) To determine which different treatments are used; 3) To explore if the cervical ROM, pain, (perceived) disability and motor control improved after one treatment. The SCT is a reliable accelerometer for measuring neck ROM, with a small measurement error. Eight different treatments were carried out. Pain, disability and left and right rotation showed a clinically relevant improvements (exceeded the measurement error). Chapter 8 comprises the general discussion. The general discussion presents an overview of this dissertation and discusses the strengths and limitations of the studies and possible implications of the results and recommendations for future research.
LINK
