Multiple assessment methods of prenatal exposure to RF radiation from telecommunication in the Mothers and Children's Environmental Health (MOCEH) study

2016 · Unclear · Moderate evidence

← Research stream

UnclearModerate evidencePaper 1409

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2016

Study typeexposure_assessment

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingModerate

Abstract

Multiple assessment methods of prenatal exposure to RF radiation from telecommunication in the Mothers and Children's Environmental Health (MOCEH) study Choi KH, Ha M, Burm E, Ha EH, Park H, Kim Y, Lee AK, Kwon JH, Choi HD, KimN. Multiple assessment methods of prenatal exposure to radio frequency radiation from telecommunication in the Mothers and Children's Environmental Health (MOCEH) study. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2016 Nov 18;29(6):959-972. doi: 10.13075/ijomeh.1896.00803.. Abstract OBJECTIVES: To evaluate prenatal exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RFR) from telecommunication using a mobile phone questionnaire, operator data logs of mobile phone use and a personal exposure meter (PEM). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study included 1228 mother-infants pairs from the Mothers and Children's Environmental Health (MOCEH) study - a multicenter prospective cohort study ongoing since 2006, in which participants were enrolled at ≤ 20 weeks of pregnancy, with a follow-up of a child birth and growth to assess the association between prenatal environmental exposure and children's health. The questionnaire included the average calling frequency per day and the average calling time per day. An EME Spy 100 PEM was used to measure RFR among 269 pregnant women from November 2007 to August 2010. The operators' log data were obtained from 21 participants. The Spearman's correlation test was performed to evaluate correlation coefficient and 95% confidence intervals between the mobile phone use information from the questionnaire, operators' log data, and data recorded by the PEM. RESULTS: The operators' log data and information from the self-reported questionnaire showed significantly high correlations in the average calling frequency per day (ρ = 0.6, p = 0.004) and average calling time per day (ρ = 0.5, p = 0.02). The correlation between information on the mobile phone use in the self-reported questionnaire and exposure index recorded by the PEM was poor. But correlation between the information of the operators' log data and exposure index for transmission of mobile communication was significantly high: correlation coefficient (p-value) was 0.44 (0.07) for calling frequency per day, and it was 0.49 (0.04) for calling time per day. CONCLUSIONS: The questionnaire information on the mobile phone use showed moderate to high quality. Using multiple methods for exposure assessment might be better than using only one method. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

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 typeexposure_assessment

Effect directionunclear

PopulationPregnant women / mother-infant pairs in the MOCEH cohort (enrolled at ≤20 weeks of pregnancy)

Sample size1228

ExposureRF

Evidence strengthModerateConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Operator log data and self-reported questionnaire data were significantly correlated for average calling frequency per day (ρ=0.6, p=0.004) and average calling time per day (ρ=0.5, p=0.02). Correlation between questionnaire-based phone use and PEM exposure index was poor, while correlations between operator log data and PEM exposure index for mobile communication transmission were higher (0.44, p=0.07 for calling frequency; 0.49, p=0.04 for calling time).

Outcomes measured

Agreement/correlation between prenatal RF exposure assessment methods (questionnaire vs operator logs vs personal exposure meter)
Calling frequency per day
Calling time per day
PEM-recorded exposure index (mobile communication transmission)

Limitations

Only 269 pregnant women had PEM measurements
Only 21 participants had operator log data
PEM vs questionnaire correlation described as poor (details not provided)
Frequency/SAR and other technical exposure parameters not reported in abstract

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "exposure_assessment",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Pregnant women / mother-infant pairs in the MOCEH cohort (enrolled at ≤20 weeks of pregnancy)",
  "sample_size": 1228,
  "outcomes": [
    "Agreement/correlation between prenatal RF exposure assessment methods (questionnaire vs operator logs vs personal exposure meter)",
    "Calling frequency per day",
    "Calling time per day",
    "PEM-recorded exposure index (mobile communication transmission)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Operator log data and self-reported questionnaire data were significantly correlated for average calling frequency per day (ρ=0.6, p=0.004) and average calling time per day (ρ=0.5, p=0.02). Correlation between questionnaire-based phone use and PEM exposure index was poor, while correlations between operator log data and PEM exposure index for mobile communication transmission were higher (0.44, p=0.07 for calling frequency; 0.49, p=0.04 for calling time).",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Only 269 pregnant women had PEM measurements",
    "Only 21 participants had operator log data",
    "PEM vs questionnaire correlation described as poor (details not provided)",
    "Frequency/SAR and other technical exposure parameters not reported in abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "moderate",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "prenatal exposure",
    "radiofrequency radiation",
    "telecommunication",
    "mobile phone",
    "questionnaire",
    "operator logs",
    "personal exposure meter",
    "EME Spy 100",
    "MOCEH",
    "cohort"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "exposure-assessment",
      "weight": 0.95,
      "reason": "Study compares multiple RF exposure assessment methods (questionnaire, operator logs, PEM) in pregnancy."
    }
  ]
}

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: 10.13075/ijomeh.1896.00803
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library