ID Number		2397
Study Type		Literature Review, Letter, Book Chapt., Report
Model		Meta-analysis of the literature on effects of RF emitted from mobile phones on human sperm quality.
Details		AUTHORS' ABSTRACT: Mobile phones are owned by most of the adult population worldwide. Radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) from these devices could potentially affect sperm development and function. Around 14% of couples in high- and middle-income countries have difficulty conceiving, and there are unexplained declines in semen quality reported in several countries. Given the ubiquity of mobile phone use, the potential role of this environmental exposure needs to be clarified. A systematic review was therefore conducted, followed by meta-analysis using random effects models, to determine whether exposure to RF-EMR emitted from mobile phones affects human sperm quality. Participants were from fertility clinic and research centres. The sperm quality outcome measures were motility, viability and concentration, which are the parameters most frequently used in clinical settings to assess fertility. We used ten studies in the meta-analysis, including 1492 samples. Exposure to mobile phones was associated with reduced sperm motility (mean difference 8.1% (95% CI 13.1, 3.2)) and viability (mean difference 9.1% (95% CI 18.4, 0.2)), but the effects on concentration were more equivocal. The results were consistent across experimental in vitro and observational in vivo studies. We conclude that pooled results from in vitro and in vivo studies suggest that mobile phone exposure negatively affects sperm quality. Further study is required to determine the full clinical implications for both sub-fertile men and the general population.
Findings		Effects
Status		Completed With Publication
Principal Investigator		U of Exeter, UK
Funding Agency		?????
Country		UNITED KINGDOM
References		Adams, JA et al. Environment International., (2014) 70:106-112 Sciorio, R et al. Zygote., (2022) 30:159-168 Sekeroglu, V et al. Ecotoxicology and environmental safety., (2012) 80:140-144
Comments