[Exposure of nursing personnel to electromagnetic fields in neonatal intensive care].

Assistenza infermieristica e ricerca : AIR · 2002 · Unclear · Low evidence

← Research stream
UnclearLow evidencePaper 5303

EMF exposure levels of nurses in a neonatal intensive care unit were recorded over two workdays. Peak levels >10 mG (1 microT) were registered, and exposure was described as almost permanent at >2 mG.

Study snapshot

PublicationAssistenza infermieristica e ricerca : AIR · 2002
Study typeexposure_assessment
Reported directionUnclear
Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Electromagnetic fields (EMF) are recognised as a source of environmental pollution for workers and people resident in exposed areas. The level of exposure to EMFs of the nurses working in the Siena Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, during two workdays was recorded and peak levels > 10 mG (1 microT) were registered well above an almost permanence exposure at > 2 mg G. The application of existing standard, cautionary criteria and rules would suggest protective or restrictive measures against EMF exposure for these workers.

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
PopulationNurses working in the Siena Neonatal Intensive Care Unit
Sample sizeNot supplied
ExposureELF · during two workdays
Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

EMF exposure levels of nurses in a neonatal intensive care unit were recorded over two workdays. Peak levels >10 mG (1 microT) were registered, and exposure was described as almost permanent at >2 mG.

Outcomes measured

  • Measured EMF exposure levels (including peak levels >10 mG / 1 microT and near-continuous exposure >2 mG)
  • Implications for protective/restrictive measures based on existing standards/cautionary criteria

Limitations

  • Sample size not reported in abstract
  • Only two workdays of measurements reported
  • Specific EMF sources and measurement methods not described in abstract
  • No health outcomes assessed; exposure-only study
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "exposure_assessment",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "ELF",
    "source": "occupational",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "during two workdays"
  },
  "population": "Nurses working in the Siena Neonatal Intensive Care Unit",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Measured EMF exposure levels (including peak levels >10 mG / 1 microT and near-continuous exposure >2 mG)",
    "Implications for protective/restrictive measures based on existing standards/cautionary criteria"
  ],
  "main_findings": "EMF exposure levels of nurses in a neonatal intensive care unit were recorded over two workdays. Peak levels >10 mG (1 microT) were registered, and exposure was described as almost permanent at >2 mG.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Sample size not reported in abstract",
    "Only two workdays of measurements reported",
    "Specific EMF sources and measurement methods not described in abstract",
    "No health outcomes assessed; exposure-only study"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "electromagnetic fields",
    "EMF",
    "occupational exposure",
    "nursing personnel",
    "neonatal intensive care unit",
    "NICU",
    "magnetic field",
    "mG",
    "microtesla"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0.9,
      "reason": "Measures EMF exposure among nurses in a neonatal intensive care unit (workplace setting)."
    }
  ]
}
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: Not supplied
PubMed: 11998343

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library