Exposure variables: frequency of cell phone use for human studies, exposure condition including exposure devices, signal type, distance, time exposure limits for in vitro studies and animal studies.
Outcome measures: concentration, motility, viability, volume, and percent morphology Normal sperm counts have been used primarily to assess semen quality. Studies that did not provide enough original data to calculate the mean difference were excluded from this meta-analysis.
In human studies, although results on the association between mobile phone use are quite inconsistent, most of the included studies (four out of six) reported that mobile phone use had negative effects on sperm parameters.
Regarding the studies In vitro laboratory studies, most studies (four out of five) showed that sperm motility and viability decreased after exposure to RF-EMR. In animal studies, three studies (Yanet al., 2007; Zhanget al., 2010; Guanet al., 2012) showed that RF-EMR exposure had adverse effects on sperm motility and viability. /p>
Twelve studies reported data and were used in the meta-analysis. Since semen parameters are continuous data, we used the weighted mean difference (WMD) to estimate the effect of mobile phone use. The weight values were automatically calculated by the Revman 5.2 software by the inverse variance method.
The inverse of the pooled variance was used as the weight value for each case. In the included human studies, significant heterogeneity was observed in concentration, motility, viability and percentage of normal sperm morphology in the combined groups.
Only heterogeneity can be accepted in the volume comparison (p>0.10, I2<50%). However, no significant mean difference was observed in the pooled analysis. We performed subgroup analyzes to test the source of heterogeneity according to participant (healthy vs infertile), comparison group (four groups vs two groups), semen analysis criteria (WHO 4th edition vs WHO 5th edition).
Comments (0)