Exposure To Extremely Low-Frequency Magnetic Fields In Low- And Middle-Income Countries: An Overview

Radiation protection dosimetry · 2020 · Unclear · Low evidence

← Research stream

UnclearLow evidencePaper 1636

Study snapshot

PublicationRadiation protection dosimetry · 2020

Study typesystematic_review

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Exposure To Extremely Low-Frequency Magnetic Fields In Low- And Middle-Income Countries: An Overview Dan Baaken, Daniel Wollschläger, Theodoros Samaras, Joachim Schüz , Isabelle Deltour. Exposure To Extremely Low-Frequency Magnetic Fields In Low- And Middle-Income Countries: An Overview. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2020 Nov 24;ncaa172. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncaa172. Abstract To compare extremely low-frequency magnetic field (ELF-MF) exposure in the general population in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with high-income countries (HIC), we carried out a systematic literature search resulting in 1483 potentially eligible articles; however, only 25 studies could be included in the qualitative synthesis. Studies showed large heterogeneity in design, exposure environment and exposure assessment. Exposure assessed by outdoor spot measurements ranged from 0.03 to 4μT. Average exposure by indoor spot measurements in homes ranged from 0.02 to 0.4μT. Proportions of homes exposed to a threshold of ≥0.3μT were many times higher in LMICs compared to HIC. Based on the limited data available, exposure to ELF-MF in LMICs appeared higher than in HIC, but a direct comparison is hampered by a lack of representative and systematic monitoring studies. Representative measurement studies on residential exposure to ELF-MF are needed in LMICs together with better standardisation in the reporting. 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 typesystematic_review

Effect directionunclear

PopulationGeneral population in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), compared with high-income countries (HICs)

Sample size25

ExposureELF

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

A systematic literature search identified 1483 potentially eligible articles, with 25 studies included in qualitative synthesis. Outdoor spot measurements ranged from 0.03 to 4 µT and average indoor spot measurements in homes ranged from 0.02 to 0.4 µT. The proportion of homes with exposure ≥0.3 µT was reported as many times higher in LMICs than in HICs; however, direct comparison was limited by lack of representative and systematic monitoring studies.

Outcomes measured

ELF magnetic field exposure levels (µT)
Proportion of homes above exposure threshold (≥0.3 µT)

Limitations

Only 25 studies could be included from 1483 potentially eligible articles
Large heterogeneity in study design, exposure environment, and exposure assessment
Lack of representative and systematic monitoring studies hampers direct LMIC vs HIC comparisons
Need for better standardisation in reporting

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "systematic_review",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "ELF",
    "source": "general population (residential/outdoor spot measurements)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "General population in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), compared with high-income countries (HICs)",
  "sample_size": 25,
  "outcomes": [
    "ELF magnetic field exposure levels (µT)",
    "Proportion of homes above exposure threshold (≥0.3 µT)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "A systematic literature search identified 1483 potentially eligible articles, with 25 studies included in qualitative synthesis. Outdoor spot measurements ranged from 0.03 to 4 µT and average indoor spot measurements in homes ranged from 0.02 to 0.4 µT. The proportion of homes with exposure ≥0.3 µT was reported as many times higher in LMICs than in HICs; however, direct comparison was limited by lack of representative and systematic monitoring studies.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Only 25 studies could be included from 1483 potentially eligible articles",
    "Large heterogeneity in study design, exposure environment, and exposure assessment",
    "Lack of representative and systematic monitoring studies hampers direct LMIC vs HIC comparisons",
    "Need for better standardisation in reporting"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "extremely low-frequency",
    "ELF-MF",
    "magnetic fields",
    "exposure assessment",
    "spot measurements",
    "residential exposure",
    "low- and middle-income countries",
    "LMIC",
    "high-income countries",
    "HIC",
    "systematic literature search"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "exposure-assessment",
      "weight": 0.86,
      "reason": "Focuses on measurement-based assessment of ELF magnetic field exposure (indoor/outdoor spot measurements) and reporting/standardisation issues."
    }
  ]
}

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: 10.1093/rpd/ncaa172
PubMed: 33232971

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library