Full text is available at the source.
Abstract
The review identified 18 studies examining the effects of RF-EMF exposure on adverse pregnancy outcomes.
- Evidence from general public studies is very uncertain regarding the impact of mobile phone RF-EMF exposure on preterm birth, low birth weight, and small for gestational age.
- No general public studies assessed the effects of RF-EMF on stillbirth.
- In occupational studies, there is very low-certainty evidence concerning the association between RF-EMF exposure from shortwave diathermy and miscarriage risk.
- Results for miscarriage, preterm birth, and low birth weight in occupational studies showed very low-certainty evidence.
- Overall, the body of evidence regarding RF-EMF exposure and female reproductive outcomes is very uncertain.
Simplified
BACKGROUND: To inform radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure guidelines the World Health Organization (WHO) is bringing together evidence on RF-EMF in relation to health outcomes prioritised for evaluation by experts in this field. Given this, a network of topic experts and methodologists have conducted a series of systematic reviews collecting, assessing, and synthesising data of relevance to these guidelines. Here we present a systematic review of the effect of RF-EMF exposure on adverse pregnancy outcomes in human observational studies which follows the WHO handbook for guideline development and the COSTER conduct guidelines.
METHODS: We conducted a broad, sensitive search for potentially relevant records within the following bibliographic databases: MEDLINE; Embase; and the EMF Portal. Grey literature searches were also conducted through relevant databases (including OpenGrey), organisational websites and via consultation of RF-EMF experts. We included quantitative human observational studies on the effect of RF-EMF exposure in adults' preconception or pregnant women on pre-term birth, small for gestational age (SGA; associated with intrauterine growth restriction), miscarriage, stillbirth, low birth weight (LBW) and congenital anomalies. In blinded duplicate, titles and abstracts then full texts were screened against eligibility criteria. A third reviewer gave input when consensus was not reached. Citation chaining of included studies was completed. Two reviewers' data extracted and assessed included studies for risk of bias using the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) tool. Random effects meta-analyses of the highest versus the lowest exposures and dose-response meta-analysis were conducted as appropriate and plausible. Two reviewers assessed the certainty in each body of evidence using the OHAT GRADE tool.
RESULTS: We identified 18 studies in this review; eight were general public studies (with the general public as the population of interest) and 10 were occupational studies (with the population of interest specific workers/workforces). General public studies. From pairwise meta-analyses of general public studies, the evidence is very uncertain about the effects of RF-EMF from mobile phone exposure on preterm birth risk (relative risk (RR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.97-1.34, 95% prediction interval (PI): 0.83-1.57; 4 studies), LBW (RR 1.14, 95% CI: 0.96-1.36, 95% PI: 0.84-1.57; 4 studies) or SGA (RR 1.13, 95% CI: 1.02-1.24, 95% PI: 0.99-1.28; 2 studies) due to very low-certainty evidence. It was not feasible to meta-analyse studies reporting on the effect of RF-EMF from mobile phone exposure on congenital anomalies or miscarriage risk. The reported effects from the studies assessing these outcomes varied and the studies were at some risk of bias. No studies of the general public assessed the impact of RF-EMF exposure on stillbirth. Occupational studies. In occupational studies, based on dose-response meta-analyses, the evidence is very uncertain about the effects of RF-EMF amongst female physiotherapists using shortwave diathermy on miscarriage due to very low-certainty evidence (OR 1.02 95% CI 0.94-1.1; 2 studies). Amongst offspring of female physiotherapists using shortwave diathermy, the evidence is very uncertain about the effects of RF-EMF on the risk of congenital malformations due to very low-certainty evidence (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.32; 2 studies). From pairwise meta-analyses, the evidence is very uncertain about the effects of RF-EMF on the risk of miscarriage (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.18; very low-certainty evidence), pre-term births (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.32 to 4.37; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence), and low birth weight (RR 2.90, 95% CI: 0.69 to 12.23; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Results for stillbirth and SGA could not be pooled in meta-analyses. The results from the studies reporting these outcomes were inconsistent and the studies were at some risk of bias.
DISCUSSION: Most of the evidence identified in this review was from general public studies assessing localised RF-EMF exposure from mobile phone use on female reproductive outcomes. In occupational settings, each study was of heterogenous whole-body RF-EMF exposure from radar, short or microwave diathermy, surveillance and welding equipment and its effect on female reproductive outcomes. Overall, the body of evidence is very uncertain about the effect of RF-EMF exposure on female reproductive outcomes. Further prospective studies conducted with greater rigour (particularly improved accuracy of exposure measurement and using appropriate statistical methods) are required to identify any potential effects of RF-EMF exposure on female reproductive outcomes of interest.