The review article on the epidemiology of glioma in adults is criticized for its shortcomings in the section on nonionizing radiation, specifically cellular phones. The authors cited three incidence time trend studies, two cohort studies, and one case-control study. However, the studies cited have significant limitations, including late ascertainment and poor histological concordance, which can lead to underestimation of incidence rates. The study by Deltour et al. reported stable glioma rates, but the Ostrom authors failed to report a significant increase in incidence rates for men and women. The study was funded by cellphone companies, raising concerns about potential bias. The US study by Little et al. reported an increased incidence of temporal lobe glioma, but this may be due to the region's high exposure to cellphone radiation. The third study cited, which claimed a correlation between mobile phone use and glioma incidence, contradicts the assertions in the section. Other studies not cited in the review, such as those showing increased brain cancer incidence in Denmark and Australia, suggest a possible link between cellphone use and glioma. The Ostrom study cited two cohort studies, but these are not suitable for determining risks for rare diseases. A single case-control study cited in the review found elevated odds ratios for glioma risk with increased cellphone use. Other case-control studies not cited in the review also found significant associations between cellphone use and brain cancer risk. The authors' conclusion that there is no association between cellphone use and glioma risk requires revision.The review article on the epidemiology of glioma in adults is criticized for its shortcomings in the section on nonionizing radiation, specifically cellular phones. The authors cited three incidence time trend studies, two cohort studies, and one case-control study. However, the studies cited have significant limitations, including late ascertainment and poor histological concordance, which can lead to underestimation of incidence rates. The study by Deltour et al. reported stable glioma rates, but the Ostrom authors failed to report a significant increase in incidence rates for men and women. The study was funded by cellphone companies, raising concerns about potential bias. The US study by Little et al. reported an increased incidence of temporal lobe glioma, but this may be due to the region's high exposure to cellphone radiation. The third study cited, which claimed a correlation between mobile phone use and glioma incidence, contradicts the assertions in the section. Other studies not cited in the review, such as those showing increased brain cancer incidence in Denmark and Australia, suggest a possible link between cellphone use and glioma. The Ostrom study cited two cohort studies, but these are not suitable for determining risks for rare diseases. A single case-control study cited in the review found elevated odds ratios for glioma risk with increased cellphone use. Other case-control studies not cited in the review also found significant associations between cellphone use and brain cancer risk. The authors' conclusion that there is no association between cellphone use and glioma risk requires revision.