Background: Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is a poorly understood condition in which patients report symptoms following perceived exposure to weak electromagnetic fields (EMFs) such as those produced by mobile phones or visual display units. Little is known about the aetiology of the condition although experimental data suggest that EMFs are an unlikely causal agent. In this systematic review we assessed the efficacy of any treatment for people reporting EHS. Methods: Twelve literature databases were examined to identify relevant studies. We also hand-searched conference proceedings and examined the reference sections of reviews and other papers. Only clinical trials that compared the efficacy of a potential treatment for EHS against a control condition were included in the review. Results: Nine controlled clinical trials were identified, examining the effects of cognitive behavioural therapy (4 studies), visual display unit screen filters (2 studies), ‘shielding’ EMF emitters (1 study), supplementary antioxidant therapy (1 study) and acupuncture (1 study). The quality of these studies was limited. Nevertheless, their results suggest that cognitive behavioural therapy is more effective than providing no treatment. None of the other therapies have had their efficacy adequately demonstrated. Conclusions: The evidence base concerning treatment options for EHS is limited and more research is needed before any definitive clinical recommendations can be made. However, the best evidence currently available suggests that cognitive behavioural therapy is effective for patients who report being hypersensitive to weak EMFs.

1.
Bergqvist UO, Vogel E, Aringerl L, Cunningham J, Gobba F, Leitgeb N, Miro L, Neubauer G, Ruppe I, Vecchia P, Wadman C: Possible Health Implications of Subjective Symptoms and Electromagnetic Fields: A Report by a European Group of Experts for the European Commission, DG V. Solna, Arbete och Halsa, 1997.
2.
Ziskin MC, Committee on Man and Radiation: Electromagnetic hypersensitivity – A COMAR Technical Information Statement. June 27, 2002. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag2002;21:173–175.
3.
Bergdahl J: Psychologic aspects of patients with symptoms presumed to be caused by electricity or visual display units. Acta Odontol Scand 1995;53:304–310.
4.
Hillert L, Berglind N, Arnetz BB, Bellander T: Prevalence of self-reported hypersensitivity to electric or magnetic fields in a population-based questionnaire survey. Scand J Work Environ Health 2002;28:33–41.
5.
Röösli M, Moser M, Baldinini Y, Meier M, Braun-Fahrländer C: Symptoms of ill health ascribed to electromagnetic field exposure – A questionnaire survey. Int J Hyg Environ Health 2004;207:141–150.
6.
Rubin GJ, Das Munshi J, Wessely S: Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: A systematic review of provocation studies. Psychosom Med 2005;67:224–232.
7.
Henningsen P, Priebe S: New environmental illnesses: What are their characteristics? Psychother Psychosom 2003;72:231–234.
8.
van Hout MSE, Wekking EM, Berg IJ, Deelman BG: Psychological treatment of patients with chronic toxic encephalopathy: Lessons from studies of chronic fatigue and whiplash. Psychother Psychosom 2003;72:235–244.
9.
Kroenke K, Swindle R: Cognitive-behavioral therapy for somatization and symptom syndromes: A critical review of controlled clinical trials. Psychother Psychosom 2000;69:205–215.
10.
Blomkvist AC, Almgren S: Hypersensitivity to electricity and preferred remedial measures; in Grieco A, Molteni G, Occhipinti E, Piccoli B (eds): Work with Display Units ’94: Selected Papers of the Fourth International Scientific Conference on Work with Display Units. Amsterdam, Elsevier Science, 1995, pp 351–356.
11.
Hillert L, Hedman BK, Dolling BF, Arnetz BB: Cognitive behavioural therapy for patients with electric sensitivity – A multidisciplinary approach in a controlled study. Psychother Psychosom 1998;67:302–310.
12.
Andersson B, Berg M, Arnetz BB, Melin L, Langlet I, Liden S: A cognitive-behavioral treatment of patients suffering from ‘electric hypersensitivity’: Subjective effects and reactions in a double-blind provocation study. J Occup Environ Med 1996;38:752–758.
13.
Harlacher U: Electric Hypersensitivity: An Explanatory Model, Some Characteristics of Sufferers and Effects of Psychological Treatment with Cognitive Behavioural Methods (in Swedish); PhD Diss, Lund, University of Lund, 1998.
14.
Hillert L, Savlin P, Levy BA, Heidenberg A, Kolmodin-Hedman B: Environmental illness – Effectiveness of a salutogenic group-intervention programme. Scand J Public Health 2002;30:166–175.
15.
Oftedal G, Nyvang A, Moen BE: Long-term effects on symptoms by reducing electric fields from visual display units. Scand J Work Environ Health 1999;25:415–421.
16.
Oftedal G, Vistnes AI, Rygge K: Skin symptoms after the reduction of electric-fields from visual display units. Scand J Work Environ Health 1995;21:335–344.
17.
Abraham G: Synchroton Scalar Synchronizers: Potential Shields against Electromagnetic Pollution. Torrance, Optimox, 1998.
18.
Hillert L, Kolmodin-Hedman B, Eneroth P, Arnetz BB: The effect of supplementary antioxidant therapy in patients who report hypersensitivity to electricity: A randomized controlled trial. Med Gen Med 2001;3:11.
19.
Arnetz BB, Berg M, Anderzen I, Lundeberg T, Haker E: A nonconventional approach to the treatment of ‘environmental illness’. J Occup Environ Med 1995;37:838–844.
20.
Giardino ND, Lehrer PM: Behavioral conditioning and idiopathic environmental intolerance. Occup Med 2000;15:519–528.
© 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel
2005
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.