# RF-015 — Highest cumulative use category in INTERPHONE

Why this matters
The highest reported call-time group had elevated odds of glioma, a type of brain tumour, in this international study. The authors could not interpret that association as causal because of bias and reporting errors. It highlights why the heaviest-use histories need close scrutiny and better exposure verification.

Id: RF-015

Author: INTERPHONE Study Group

Full Authors: The INTERPHONE Study Group

Year: 2010

Title: Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study

Journal: international journal of epidemiology

Citation: The INTERPHONE Study Group. Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2010;39(3):675-694. doi:10.1093/ije/dyq079.

Doi: 10.1093/ije/dyq079

Pmid: 20483835

Topic: Human tumour associations

Verification Group: Original abstract verified

Record Role: Original abstract verified

Featured: False

Exposure: Interview-based lifetime handset-use histories across 13 countries; no measured individual SAR.

Design: 2708 glioma and 2409 meningioma cases with matched controls; original abstract and PubMed linked-notice record checked.

Finding: Original abstract: highest recalled call-time decile (>=1640 h) had glioma OR 1.40 (95% CI 1.03-1.89), while regular use overall and >=10 years since first use did not show increased risk. Authors state biases and errors prevent causal interpretation.

Boundary: Implausible reported use in the highest decile, participation bias and recall error materially qualify the positive stratum. Do not count country analyses as independent cohorts.

Protection Question: Can the highest-use association be separated from reporting error and selection bias? Shared national and pooled participants must remain visible when judging corroboration; this record does not establish a causal human cancer estimate.

Access: Original abstract and primary PubMed publication/erratum linkage reviewed; full methods not re-audited

Locator: Original abstract Results and Conclusions; PubMed PMID 20483835 Erratum in

Notice: PubMed lists a 2012 erratum correcting collaborator Montestrucq's name. Scite incorrectly labels dyq082 as an erratum: dyq082 is Saracci/Samet commentary; its own correction is dyq135. No quantitative tumour correction inferred.

Funding: Not established from retrieved material.

Conflicts: Not established from retrieved material.

Source Url: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyq079

Retrieval Links: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyq079 | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20483835/ | https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyq082 | https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyq135

Verification Date: 2026-10-20