Skip to main content
Environmental Sciences Europe

Table 2 Comparison of the scores of subscales and other items between the four groups

From: Comparison of environmental intolerances and symptoms between patients with multiple chemical sensitivity, subjects with self-reported electromagnetic hypersensitivity, patients with bronchial asthma, and the general population

 

MCS

EHS

BA

Controls

AORa

Orderb and differencec

MCS vs. EHS

MCS vs. BA

MCS vs. controls

EHS vs. BA

EHS vs. controls

BA vs. controls

Items of QEESI

 Total of Q1 Chemical intolerances, median (IQR)

68 (33)

64 (48.5)

31 (37)

18 (32)

1.0

1.1****

1.1****

1.0****

1.1****

1.0**

M, E > B > C

 Total of Q2 Other intolerances, median (IQR)

25 (25)

21 (27.25)

10 (18.25)

6 (12)

1.0

1.1****

1.1****

1.0**

1.1****

1.1****

M, E > B > C

 Total of Q3 Symptom severity, median (IQR)

52.5 (34.25)

42 (37.25)

13 (14.75)

10 (17)

1.0

1.1****

1.1****

1.1****

1.1****

1.0

M, E > B, C

 Total of Q4 Masking index, median (IQR)

3 (3)

2 (2)

5 (1)

4 (2)

1.5***

0.65****

0.78***

0.40****

0.48****

1.2*

B > C > M > E

 Total of Q5 Life impact, median (IQR)

49 (36.5)

40 (56.25)

5 (12)

2 (8)

1.0

1.1****

1.1****

1.1****

1.1****

1.0*

M, E > B > C

Items of EHS questionnaire

 Total of II-1 Symptoms, median (IQR)

94.5 (69.75)

69 (63)

37 (33.5)

30 (29.25)

1.0

1.0****

1.0****

1.0****

1.0****

1.0*

M, E > B > C

 Total of II-2 EMF-producing objects, median (IQR)

5 (21)

19 (21)

0 (3.5)

1 (4)

0.93**

1.1**

1.1****

1.2****

1.2****

1.0

E > M > B, C

II-3 Reaction to EMFs

 q67 Sensitive to EMFs, median (IQR)

2 (4)

3.5 (3)

0 (1)

0 (0)

0.66****

2.3****

3.0****

4.4****

5.0****

1.2

E > M > B, C

 q68 Detailed description, % (n)d

58.9 (53)

89.1 (106)

20.6 (20)

9.4 (58)

0.17****

5.2****

13****

33****

71****

2.4*

E > M > B > C

 q69 Experience a severe electric shock, % (n)e

57.0 (61)

67.5 (79)

38.5 (37)

49.4 (298)

0.58

1.9

1.3

3.6***

2.2**

0.66

E, M, C, B

 q70 Frequency of static electricity, median (IQR)

1 (2)

2 (2)

1 (1)

1 (1)

0.80

1.5*

1.2

2.0****

1.4***

0.74*

E, M, C > B

 q71 Frequency of negative health around EMFs, median (IQR)

1 (3)

3 (3)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0.61****

2.7****

3.5****

4.9****

5.6****

1.3

E > M > B, C

III General health

 d1 Well-being, median (IQR)

2 (1)

2 (2)

2 (1)

2 (1)

0.59**

0.24****

0.31****

0.66*

0.66**

1.0

B, C > E > M

 d2 Good health, median (IQR)

1 (1)

1 (1)

2 (1)

2 (0)

0.60*

0.22****

0.20****

0.47***

0.37****

0.75

C, B > E > M

 d3.1 Sleep, median (IQR)

1 (2)

2 (1)

2 (1)

2 (1)

0.63*

0.37****

0.38****

0.68

0.63***

0.90

C, B, E > M

 d3.2 Sleeping hours per day, median (IQR)

7 (2)

7 (2)

6 (2)

6 (1)

1.1

1.8***

1.6****

1.5**

1.3*

0.76

M, E > C, B

 d3.3 Sleeping disorder, median (IQR)

2 (2)

2 (2)

1 (1)

1 (2)

1.1

1.6**

2.0****

1.5**

1.8****

1.2

M, E > B, C

 d4 Chronic illness, % (n)e

63.6 (70)

59.6 (68)

87.4 (83)

44.4 (272)

1.2

0.22***

2.2**

0.17****

1.8*

8.2****

B > M, E > C

 Total of IV THI-D, median (IQR)

22 (9)

21 (9)

16 (7)

15.5 (8)

1.0

1.2****

1.2****

1.1***

1.1****

1.0

M, E > B, C

  1. MCS and M Multiple chemical sensitivity, EHS and E Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, BA and B Bronchial asthma, C Controls, AOR Adjusted odds ratio, QEESI Quick Environmental Exposure and Sensitivity Inventory, IQR Interquartile range, EMF Electromagnetic field, THI-D Total health index-depression
  2. aIn case of A vs. B, AOR of the score of A against the score of B. AOR was calculated using age and gender as covariates
  3. bOrder based on the AOR
  4. cIn case of A > B, the score of A was significantly higher than that of B (p < 0.05)
  5. dProportion and number of the subjects who described two or more items
  6. eProportion and number of the subjects who selected “yes (1)”
  7. *p < 0.05
  8. **p < 0.01
  9. ***p < 0.001
  10. ****p < 0.0001
Back to article page