BACKGROUND: The technological applications of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) have been steadily increasing since the 1950s exposing large proportions of the population. The World Health Organization (WHO) is assessing the potential health effects of exposure to RF-EMF. OBJECTIVES: To systematically assess the effects of exposure to RF-EMF on self-reported non-specific symptoms in human subjects and to assess the accuracy of perceptions of presence or absence of RF-EMF exposure. METHODS: Eligibility criteria: experimental studies carried out in the general population and in individuals with idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to EMF (IEI-EMF), in any language. INFORMATION SOURCES: Medline, Web of Science, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, Embase and EMF portal, searched till April 2022. Risk of Bias (ROB): we used the RoB tool developed by OHAT adapted to the topic of this review. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: we synthesized studies using random effects meta-analysis and sensitivity analyses, where appropriate. RESULTS: Included studies: 41 studies were included, mostly cross over trials and from Europe, with a total of 2,874 participants. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: considering the primary outcomes, we carried out meta-analyses of 10 exposure-outcomes pairs. All evidence suggested no or small non-significant effects of exposure on symptoms with high (three comparisons), moderate (four comparisons), low (one comparison) and very low (two comparisons) certainty of evidence. The effects (standard mean difference, where positive values indicate presence of symptom being exposed) in the general population for head exposure were (95% confidence intervals) 0.08 (-0.07 to 0.22) for headache, -0.01 (-0.22 to 0.20) for sleeping disturbances and 0.13 (-0.51 to 0.76) for composite symptoms; and for whole-body exposure: 0.09 (-0.35 to 0.54), 0.00 (-0.15 to 0.15) for sleeping disturbances and -0.05 (-0.17 to 0.07) for composite symptoms. For IEI-EMF individuals SMD ranged from -0.19 to 0.11, all of them with confidence intervals crossing the value of zero. Further, the available evidence suggested that study volunteers could not perceive the EMF exposure status better than what is expected by chance and that IEI-EMF individuals could not determine EMF conditions better than the general population. DISCUSSION: Limitations of evidence: experimental conditions are substantially different from real-life situations in the duration, frequency, distance and position of the exposure. Most studies were conducted in young, healthy volunteers, who might be more resilient to RF-EMF than the general population. The outcomes of interest in this systematic review were symptoms, which are self-reported. The available information did not allow to assess the potential effects of exposures beyond acute exposure and in elderly or in chronically ill people. It cannot be ruled out that a real EMF effect in IEI-EMF groups is masked by a mix with insensitive subjects. However, studies on symptoms reporting and/or field perceptions did not find any evidence that there were particularly vulnerable individuals in the IEI-EMF group, although in open provocation studies, when volunteers were informed about the presence or absence of EMF exposure, such differences were consistently observed. INTERPRETATION: available evidence suggests that acute RF-EMF below regulatory limits does not cause symptoms and corresponding claims in the everyday life are related to perceived and not to real EMF exposure status.