Inskip et al 2001, USA5 | | 1994–1998 | | Case–control | | ⩾18 | | Glioma | | 11 | | 0.6 (0.3 to 1.4) | | ⩾5 years of cell phone use |
Auvinen et al 2002, Finland7 | 1996 | Case–control, register-based | 20–69 | | Glioma | | 119 | 1.5 (1.0 to 2.4) | Analogue and digital cell phone “ever” use |
40 | 2.1 (1.3 to 3.4) | Analogue cell phone “ever” use |
11 | 2.4 (1.2 to 5.1) | Analogue cell phone use 1–2 years |
11 | 2.0 (1.0 to 4.1) | Analogue cell phone use, >2 years |
Lönn et al 2005, Sweden Interphone10 | 2000–2002 | Case–control | 20–69 | | Glioma | | 214 | 0.8 (0.6 to 1.0) | Regular use |
15 | 1.6 (0.8 to 3.4) | ⩾10 years since first “regular” cell phone use on same side of head as tumour |
11 | 0.7 (0.3 to 1.5) | ⩾10 years since first “regular” cell phone use on opposite side of head as tumour. |
Christensen et al 2005 Denmark Interphone12 | 2000–2002 | Case–control | 20–69 | | Low-grade glioma | | 47 | 1.1 (0.6 to 2.0) | Regular use |
6 | 1.6 (0.4 to 6.1) | ⩾10 years since first “regular” use of cell phone |
High-grade glioma | | 59 | 0.6 (0.4 to 0.9) | Regular use |
8 | 0.5 (0.2 to 1.3) | ⩾10 years since first regular use of cell phone |
17 ORs for high-grade glioma, all <1.0, indicate systematic bias. |
Hepworth et al 2006 UK Interphone13 | 2000–2004 | Case–control | 18–69 | | Glioma | | 508 | 0.9 (0.8 to 1.1) | Regular use |
Not given | 1.6 (0.9 to 2.8) | ⩾10 years of cell phone use on same side of head as tumour. |
Not given | 0.8 (0.4 to 1.4) | >10 years of cell phone use on opposite side of head as tumour. |
Schüz et al 2006 Germany Interphone14 | 2000–2003 | Case–control | 30–59 (2000–2001), 30–69 (2001–2003) | | Glioma | | 138 | 1.0 (0.7 to 1.3) | Regular use |
12 | 2.2 (0.9 to 5.1) | ⩾10 years since first “regular” use of cell phone |
30 | 2.0 (1.1 to 3.5) | Female regular use of cell phone (glioma, high-grade) |
Hardell et al 2006b, Sweden16 | 1997–2003 | Case–control | 20–80 | | Glioma, high-grade | | 281 | 1.4 (1.1 to 1.8) | >1-year latency of cell phone use |
71 | 3.1 (2.0 to 4.6) | >10-year latency of cell phone use |
39 | 5.4 (3.0 to 9.6) | >10-year latency of ipsilateral cell phone use |
23 | 2.2 (1.3 to 3.9) | >10-year latency of cordless phone use |
10 | 4.7 (1.8 to 13) | >10-year latency of ipsilateral cordless phone use |
Glioma, low-grade | | 65 | 1.4 (0.9 to 2.3) | >1-year latency of cell phone use |
7 | 1.5 (0.6 to 3.8) | >10-year latency of cell phone use |
2 | 1.2 (0.3 to 5.8) | >10-year latency of ipsilateral cell phone use |
5 | 1.6 (0.5 to 4.6) | >10-year latency of cordless phone use |
3 | 3.2 (0.6 to 16) | >10-year latency of ipsilateral cordless phone use |
Schüz et al 2006, Denmark17 | 1982–2002 | Cohort | ⩾18 | | Glioma | | 257 | SIR = 1.0 (0.9 to 1.1) | No laterality of tumour and mobile phone given |
54 | SIR = 1.2 (0.9 to 1.6) | Temporal lobe |
Lahkola et al Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, UK Interphone19 | September 2000–February 2004 (differed between countries) | Case–control | 20–69 (Nordic countries), 18–59 (UK) | | Glioma | | 867 | 0.8 (0.7 to 0.9) | Regular use |
77 | 1.4 (1.01 to 1.9) | Ipsilateral mobile phone use, ⩾10 years since first use, p for trend = 0.04 |