Effect of Magnetic Fields during Pregnancy on Fetal Growth and Preterm Labor: A Review Article

2020 · Mixed · Very low evidence

← Research stream

MixedVery low evidencePaper 962

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2020

Study typereview

Reported directionMixed

Evidence ratingVery low

Abstract

Effect of Magnetic Fields during Pregnancy on Fetal Growth and Preterm Labor: A Review Article Zahra Khojastehfard, Somayeh Ghahremani, Maryam Sabaghian, Samaneh Ghalebizadeh, Zoleykha Asgarlou, Soheil Mohammadi Yazdi, Mahla Salarfard. Effect of Magnetic Fields during Pregnancy on Fetal Growth and Preterm Labor: A Review Article. Intl J Pediatrics. 10.22038/ijp.2020.48094.3874 Abstract Background Low birth weight is one of the most important health indicators in evaluating pregnancy care worldwide. We aimed to evaluate the effect of cell phones used in pregnancy on fetal growth and preterm labor. Materials and Methods The search process included screening the relevant articles on electronic databases of Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Medline to analyze the association of maternal exposure to magnetic fields with fetal growth, birth weight, small-for-gestational-age (SGA), and preterm labor. Results In the first study, the duration of pregnancy was shorter for mothers using cell phones for more than one hour per day than those use shorter than one hour. In the second study, the intermediate use of cell phones by mothers indicated an increased risk of preterm birth. In the third study, the birth weight were lower in excessive cell phone users than normal status. In the fourth study, low, medium, and high cell phone exposure during the six months before conception had no effect on low birth weight, preterm birth, and SGA.In the fifth study, a negative correlation was observed between magnetic fields expose during pregnancy and the birth week, birth weight, and birth length of the newborn. In the sixth study, the risk of low birth weight, preterm birth, and SGA was close to null. In the seventh study, dental radiography during pregnancy was associated with low birth weight, specifically with term low birth weight. Conclusion In general, there are contradictory findings on the impact of cell phone exposure during pregnancy. These results should be interpreted with caution because of the small sample size and recall bias. Open access paper: ijp.mums.ac.ir

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typereview

Effect directionmixed

PopulationPregnant mothers (maternal exposure during pregnancy; some exposure assessed 6 months before conception)

Sample sizeNot supplied

Exposure>1 hour/day (in one included study); also low/medium/high exposure categories and 6 months before conception (in one included study)

Evidence strengthVery lowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: unknown

Main findings

Across included studies, some reported shorter pregnancy duration and increased risk of preterm birth with higher cell phone use, and lower birth weight among excessive users; other studies reported no effect on low birth weight, preterm birth, or SGA. One study reported a negative correlation between magnetic field exposure during pregnancy and birth week, birth weight, and birth length; another reported near-null risks for low birth weight, preterm birth, and SGA. The authors conclude findings are contradictory and should be interpreted cautiously due to small sample size and recall bias.

Outcomes measured

fetal growth
pregnancy duration
preterm labor/preterm birth
birth weight
low birth weight
small-for-gestational-age (SGA)
birth week
birth length

Limitations

Contradictory findings across included studies
Small sample size (as noted by authors)
Recall bias (as noted by authors)

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "review",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": ">1 hour/day (in one included study); also low/medium/high exposure categories and 6 months before conception (in one included study)"
  },
  "population": "Pregnant mothers (maternal exposure during pregnancy; some exposure assessed 6 months before conception)",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "fetal growth",
    "pregnancy duration",
    "preterm labor/preterm birth",
    "birth weight",
    "low birth weight",
    "small-for-gestational-age (SGA)",
    "birth week",
    "birth length"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Across included studies, some reported shorter pregnancy duration and increased risk of preterm birth with higher cell phone use, and lower birth weight among excessive users; other studies reported no effect on low birth weight, preterm birth, or SGA. One study reported a negative correlation between magnetic field exposure during pregnancy and birth week, birth weight, and birth length; another reported near-null risks for low birth weight, preterm birth, and SGA. The authors conclude findings are contradictory and should be interpreted cautiously due to small sample size and recall bias.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Contradictory findings across included studies",
    "Small sample size (as noted by authors)",
    "Recall bias (as noted by authors)"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "very_low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "unknown",
  "keywords": [
    "pregnancy",
    "magnetic fields",
    "cell phone",
    "fetal growth",
    "birth weight",
    "low birth weight",
    "small-for-gestational-age",
    "preterm labor",
    "preterm birth"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "pregnancy-and-reproduction",
      "weight": 0.9,
      "reason": "Review focuses on maternal magnetic field/cell phone exposure during pregnancy and fetal growth, birth outcomes, and preterm birth."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.22038/ijp.2020.48094.3874
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library