Abstract
I read with great interest the article ‘Mobile phone headache: A double blind, sham-controlled provocation study’ by Oftedal et al (1). I would like to comment on the article and make suggestions to develop a better understanding of mobile phone headache.
As with other double-blind provocation studies for mobile phone headache (2–4), the authors evaluated the effect of radiofrequency field on headache provocation among vulnerable individuals as part of a double-blind test. They concluded that there was no evidence for radiofrequency fields from mobile phones causing head pain or discomfort or influencing physiological variables.
However, the conditions used in these provocation tests were not exactly the same as those experienced in actual mobile phone use. In addition to the effects of radiofrequency field during mobile phone use, local temperature changes and background noise must also be considered (5). Both local temperature changes and noise can provoke headache (6–9). When considering actual mobile phone use, double-blind provocation tests should include these conditions. In studying the role of radiofrequency in mobile phone headache provocation, the blind test should compare actual mobile phone conditions (radiofrequency + temperature + noise) and conditions without radiofrequency (no radiofrequency + temperature + noise). In addition, to identify the role of each of these conditions, the provocation test must consider combinational roles of these conditions in headache provocation.
Nevertheless, this study gave an important insight into the significance of radiofrequency in headache provocation and the possible roles of nocebo effects in mobile phone headache. Mobile phone users now number over 3 billion people world-wide (10). Therefore, if there are health issues related to mobile phone use, the impact and consequences are of great significance. More refined provocation tests that include all actual mobile phone conditions will provide a better understanding of mobile phone headache.