“Riddled with errors”: Study of cell phones and breast cancer retracted

A journal has retracted a study that said exposure to radiofrequency radiation increased the risk of breast cancer after an epidemiologist found that some of the papers it relied upon did not measure radiofrequency radiation at all, in a decision that the lead author has called “unfair.”

The study, titled “Exposure to radiofrequency radiation increases the risk of breast cancer: A systematic review and meta‑analysis,” was published in Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine on November 9th. The paper analyzed eight prior studies — four case‑control and four cohort studies — concluding “that radiofrequency radiation exposure significantly increased the risk of breast cancer, especially in women aged ≥50 years and in individuals who used electric appliances, such as mobile phones and computers.”

In early December, Frank de Vocht, an epidemiologist at the University of Bristol, decided to investigate the study. He explained in an email to Retraction Watch: 

This was a paper initially widely referenced by anti-mobile phone, anti-5G activists and activist groups. Someone asked me what I thought of the paper on twitter, so I had a closer look at it. That’s when I realised that most of the numbers used in the meta-analysis were incorrect. I contacted the editor because the journal has no option to submit a Comment or ‘Letter to the Editor’, who then started an investigation. This took a very long time, but eventually they retracted the paper.

On December 9th, de Vocht tweeted that three of its source papers didn’t involve radiofrequency radiation at all and a fourth study only measured breast cancer in men after exposure to “extremely low frequency,” or ELF, waves. de Vocht tweeted that the study was “riddled with errors,” and alerted the publisher, Spandidos Publications, who started an investigation. On February 1, Spandidos alerted de Vocht that the study would be retracted.

The retraction notice, published on March 10, explains flaws with four studies that were included in the meta-analysis:

Following the publication of the above systematic review and meta‑analysis, an interested reader drew to the Editor’s attention that there were potentially a number of concerns associated with the eight source papers on which the study had been based. Two of the studies were considered to have been based on 50 Hz electromagnetic fields and not on radiofrequency radiation; furthermore, one reference used an inaccurate risk estimate for the wrong exposure (shiftwork instead of RF), and one of the studies was focused on male breast cancer (the others all being concerned with female breast cancer). 

The notice continues, explaining that the authors disagreed with the retraction and that a corrigendum would be insufficient given the number of errors involved:

These issues were drawn to the attention of the authors, who did prepare a rebuttal in response to the reader’s comments. Independently, the Editorial Board also conducted an independent investigation of the reader’s claims, and reached the conclusion that the sheer number of corrections that would have been potentially required meant that it would not have been readily feasible to publish a Corrigendum. Taking all the factors into consideration, the Editor of Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine has therefore decided that the article should be retracted from the Journal on account of the number of uncertainties associated with both the way in which the meta‑analysis had been performed and the source papers selected for the study. Note that the authors were not in agreement with the retraction of this paper.

Hsiu-Ting Tsai, a professor of nursing at Taipei Medical University and lead author on the study, called the retraction unfair in an email to Retraction Watch:

We definitely think the retraction is unfair because we without opportunity to rebuttal the mistake from some reader’s bias. Even thought [sic] we emailed the Response Letter (point by point to respond the questions from reader) to Spandidos Publications and only receive the response from Spandidos Publications and shown “Thank you for your email. However, the article has already been retracted. This is the editor’s final decision.” We deeply think this final decision is unfair. 

We asked for the rebuttal text, but Hsiu-Ting declined, saying:

I regret that I can’t share with you the written rebuttal based on the authorship relationship. However, you may find some information from online. The author debated why we also included male population to estimate the potential risk of radiofrequency radiation on breast cancer risk. It seems a little bit ridiculous for the debate since we all know that both genders are potential candidates for breast cancer risk.

De Vocht said that the authors’ disagreement with the retraction was “a surprise.” 

The publisher did not reply to our requests for comment.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].