Mobile Phone Use During Pregnancy: Which Association With Fetal Growth?

Journal of gynecology obstetrics and human reproduction · 2020 · Mixed · Low evidence

← Research stream
MixedLow evidencePaper 1482

In adjusted models, mothers reporting >30 minutes/day of mobile phone calls during pregnancy had higher odds of newborn AUDIPOG score ≤10th percentile compared with <5 minutes/day (aOR 1.54 [1.03–2.31], p=0.0374). No statistically significant association was …

Study snapshot

PublicationJournal of gynecology obstetrics and human reproduction · 2020
Study typecohort
Reported directionMixed
Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Mobile Phone Use During Pregnancy: Which Association With Fetal Growth? Nathalie Boileau, François Margueritte, Tristan Gauthier, Nedjma Boukeffa, Pierre-Marie Preux, Anaïs Labrunie, Yves Aubard. Mobile Phone Use During Pregnancy: Which Association With Fetal Growth? J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2020 Jul 2;101852. doi: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2020.101852. Abstract Introduction: Few studies have investigated the effect of electromagnetic waves on the human fetus whereas nowadays mobile phone use is ubiquitous. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between mobile phone use by pregnant women and fetal development during pregnancy in the general population. Material and methods: Data came from the NéHaVi cohort ("prospective follow-up, from intrauterine development to the age of 18 years, for children born in Haute-Vienne"), a prospective, longitudinal, multicenter (three maternity units in Haute-Vienne) observational cohort focusing on children born between April 2014 and April 2017. Main objective was to investigate the association of mobile phone use on fetal growth. Univariate and multivariate models were generated adjusted for the socioprofessional category variables of the mother, and other variables likely to influence fetal growth. Results: For the analysis 1,378 medical charts were considered from which 1,368 mothers (99.3%) used their mobile phones during pregnancy. Mean phone time was 29.8 minutes (range: 0.0 - 240.0 minutes) per day. After adjustment, newborns whose mothers used their mobile phones for more than 30 minutes/day were significantly more likely to have an AUDIPOG score ≤ 10th percentile than those whose mothers used their mobile phones for less than 5 minutes/day during pregnancy (aOR = 1.54 [1.03; 2.31], p = 0.0374). For women using their cell phones 5 to 15 min and 15 to 30 min, there wasn't a significant association with an AUDIPOG score ≤ 10th, respectively aOR = 0.98 [0.58; 1.65] and aOR = 1.68 [0.99; 2.82]. Conclusion: Using a mobile phone for calls for more than 30 minutes per day during pregnancy may have a negative impact on fetal growth. A prospective study should be performed to further evaluate this potential link. pubmed.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 typecohort
Effect directionmixed
PopulationPregnant women and their newborns from the NéHaVi cohort (Haute-Vienne; three maternity units), children born April 2014–April 2017
Sample size1378
ExposureRF · Self-reported call time categories during pregnancy (<5, 5–15, 15–30, >30 minutes/day); mean 29.8 min/day (range 0–240)
Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

In adjusted models, mothers reporting >30 minutes/day of mobile phone calls during pregnancy had higher odds of newborn AUDIPOG score ≤10th percentile compared with <5 minutes/day (aOR 1.54 [1.03–2.31], p=0.0374). No statistically significant association was reported for 5–15 min/day (aOR 0.98 [0.58–1.65]) or 15–30 min/day (aOR 1.68 [0.99–2.82]).

Outcomes measured

  • Fetal/newborn growth (AUDIPOG score ≤10th percentile)

Limitations

  • Observational cohort design; residual confounding possible despite adjustment
  • Exposure based on reported phone call duration; no objective RF exposure metrics (frequency/SAR) provided
  • Nearly all mothers used mobile phones (99.3%), limiting contrast between exposed and unexposed
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "cohort",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "Self-reported call time categories during pregnancy (<5, 5–15, 15–30, >30 minutes/day); mean 29.8 min/day (range 0–240)"
  },
  "population": "Pregnant women and their newborns from the NéHaVi cohort (Haute-Vienne; three maternity units), children born April 2014–April 2017",
  "sample_size": 1378,
  "outcomes": [
    "Fetal/newborn growth (AUDIPOG score ≤10th percentile)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In adjusted models, mothers reporting >30 minutes/day of mobile phone calls during pregnancy had higher odds of newborn AUDIPOG score ≤10th percentile compared with <5 minutes/day (aOR 1.54 [1.03–2.31], p=0.0374). No statistically significant association was reported for 5–15 min/day (aOR 0.98 [0.58–1.65]) or 15–30 min/day (aOR 1.68 [0.99–2.82]).",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Observational cohort design; residual confounding possible despite adjustment",
    "Exposure based on reported phone call duration; no objective RF exposure metrics (frequency/SAR) provided",
    "Nearly all mothers used mobile phones (99.3%), limiting contrast between exposed and unexposed"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "pregnancy",
    "mobile phone",
    "RF exposure",
    "fetal growth",
    "AUDIPOG",
    "birth outcomes",
    "prospective cohort"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "mobile-phones",
      "weight": 0.9,
      "reason": "Study evaluates maternal mobile phone use during pregnancy and fetal growth outcomes."
    }
  ]
}
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: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2020.101852
PubMed: 32623065

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library