Skip to main content
. 2023 May 12;18(1):20230697. doi: 10.1515/med-2023-0697

Table 1.

Overview of all studies included in the systematic review and meta-analysis

Author [ref] Year Region Study design Sample size Participants Type of EMF signal Exposure Outcome Effect size QAS
Su et al. [35] 2014 China Cross-sectional 149 Pregnant women in first trimester who were seeking induced abortion Power-line MFs Maternal exposure to magnetic fields ≥0.82 mG and <0.82 mG Embryonic sac length ≤25th percentile (20 mm) (N = 36); >25th percentile (N = 94) OR: 1.56 (0.7–3.48) 5
Embryonic bud length ≤25th percentile (7 mm) (N = 19); >25th percentile (N = 46) OR: 3.95 (1.10–14.20)
Mahram and Ghazavi [11] 2013 Iran Cohort 380 Pregnant women and their newborns High-voltage power lines Maternal exposure during pregnancy to high-voltage power lines or living at a distance of 25 m from cables or high-voltage towers (mean MF: 3.0104 ± 1,081 mG) N = 222 vs unexposed group (mean MF: 0.419 ± 0.04 mG) N = 158 Congenital malformation 1.43 (0.35 to 5.83) 6
Sadeghi et al. [37] 2017 Iran Nested case–control 304 Case: the mothers with spontaneous preterm childbirth (N = 152); control: the mothers with tern childbirth High-voltage power lines or statin Maternal exposure during pregnancy to high-voltage power lines or living at a distance of 600 m from cables or high voltage towers N = 28 (9.8%) vs unexposed group (≥600 m) N = 257 (90.2%) Congenital malformation 5.05 (1.52–16.78)
Blaasaas et al. [34] 2002 Norway Population-based study 836,475 Records of the pregnant women that registered in Medical Birth of Norway Occupational exposure to 50 Hz EMF (melting industry, welders, machinists, pilots, some occupations in textile industries, woodworking factories, working with electricity, glass, and ceramics) Occupational exposure maternity to magnetic fields above 0.1 μT ≥ 24 h/week vs < 4 h/week) (0.1 µT = 1 mG) Case: all CNS defect (N = 1,171); control group (N = 777,039) OR: 1.41 (0.81–2.44) 6
Case: spina bifida (N = 409): control group (N = 777,801) OR: 2.33 (1.10–4.94)
Tabrizi and Bidgoli [30] 2015 Iran Case–control 122 Children diagnose with ALL and normal children <12 years Residence near high-voltage power lines Neonatal and childhood exposure to high voltage power lines (>4 yeras) by questionnaire Case group: childhood ALL (N = 22); control group: healthy children (N = 100) 3.65 (1.69–7.87) 4
Zarei et al. [38] 2019 Iran Case–control 185 Mothers of children aged 3–7 year diagnosed with speech problems and mothers of healthy children Residence near high-voltage power lines Maternal exposure to high-tension power line before pregnancy by questionnaire Case group: children with speech problems (N = 110); control group: healthy children (N = 75) 18.96 (1.11–325.49) 5
Maternal exposure to high-tension power lines during pregnancy by questionnaire 4.34 (1.22–15.38)
Lerman et al. [36] 2001 Israel Case–control 434 Women with 933 pregnancies Female physiotherapists who had ever been pregnant Occupational exposure to 27.12 MHz EMF (shortwaves and ultrasonic device) Occupational exposure of physiotherapist mothers to shortwaves device vs unexposed group Case: congenital malformation (N = 41); control group (N = 512) 2.24 (1.28–4.83) 5
Occupational exposure of physiotherapist mothers to ultrasonic device vs unexposed group Case: congenital malformation (N = 40); control group (N = 633) 3.23 (1.5–8.68)
Hug et al. [40] 2010 German Case–control 4,431 Children 0–14 years old with and without childhood cancer Occupational exposures: metal workers, electric welders, locomotive engineers, and power plant operators Fathers’ pre-conception exposure to EMFs ≤0.2 μT and >0.2 μT (0.2 µT = 2 mG) Case: children with cancer (N = 2,049); control group: healthy children (N = 2,382) 1.03 (0.83–1.18) 6
Ha et al. [39] 2007 South Korean Case–control 1,928 Children under age 15 years with leukemia Radio transmitter (with a power of 20 kW or more) Residence address <2 km from the nearest radio transmitter vs who was living >20 km from it Case: children with leukemia (N = 808); control group (N = 676) 2.5 (1–4.67) 5
Q1: <518.41 mV/m Lymphocytic leukemia (case: 514 vs control: 513) 1
Q2: 518.41–<624.35 mV/m 1.39 (1.04–1.86)
Q3: 624.35–<916.96 mV/m 1.59 (1.19–2.11)
Q4: _916.96 mV/m 1.08 (0.8–1.45)
Bektas et al. [54] 2020 Turkey Cohort 149 Pregnant women after birth, placenta and cord blood samples were collected Use of mobile phone and Wi-Fi (2.4 GHz) Maternal exposure to mobile phone: Group 1: user mobile phone (N = 48), Group 2: Wi-Fi exposed (N = 17), Group 3: mobile phone plus Wi-Fi (N = 64) vs unexposed group (control) (N = 20) DNA damage was detected in lymphocytes of the samples of cord blood with Comet test Tail intensity Control group: 24.72 ± 2.79 5
Group 1: 46.13 ± 11.50
Group 2: 23.76 ± 4.45
Group 3: 46.86 ± 11.47 (p < 0.001)
Tail movement Control group: 41.32 ± 10.09
Group 1: 106.95 ± 71.78
Group 2: 38.13 ± 7.87
Group 3: 127.82 ± 81.01 (p < 0.001)
Oxidant factors in cord blood Protein carbonyl Control group: 62.54 ± 16.28
Group 1: 82.92 ± 17.01
Group 2: 68.46 ± 11.93
Group 3: 86.68 ± 13.22 (p < 0.001)
8-Hydroxy-20-deoxyguanosine Control group: 81.63 ± 9.87
Group 1: 96.11 ± 13.84
Group 2: 80.43 ± 11.44
Group 3: 99.77 ± 15.12 (p < 0.001)
Malondialdehyde [53] Control group: 10.35 ± 7.86
Group 1: 25.45 ± 15.47
Group 2: 11.87 ± 7.55
Group 3: 27.48 ± 12.03 (p < 0.001)
Total oxidant status (TOS) Control group: 9.08 ± 1.94
Group 1: 11.30 ± 2.11
Group 2: 10.18 ± 1.86
Group 3: 10.96 ± 2.15 (p < 0.001)
Antioxidant factors in cord blood TOS Control group: 1.28 ± 0.48
Group 1: 0.89 ± 0.377
Group 2: 1.09 ± 0.43
Group 3: 0.91 ± 0.41 (p < 0.001)
Ratio of total oxidant to total antioxidant Oxidative stress index (OSI) Control group: 8.29 ± 3.95
Group 1: 14.65 ± 5.61
Group 2: 10.45 ± 3.67
Group 3: 14.62 ± 7.44 (p < 0.001)
Bektas et al. [33] 2018 Turkey Cohort 149 Pregnant women were divided into three groups based on the duration of mobile phone use per day Radiofrequencies (RFs) emitted from mobile phones Mother who user mobile phone: Group 1 (2–15 min/day), N = 39, Group 2: (15–60 min/day), N = 37, Group 3: more than 60 min/day, N = 36; control group: nonusers of mobile phone N = 37 Biochemical parameters of cord blood Aspartate aminotransferase Control group: 44.54 ± 19.94 4
Group 1: 46.61 ± 17.17
Group 2: 64.83 ± 18.75
Group 3: 75.05 ± 23.39 (p < 0.001
Alanine aminotransferase Control group: 49.29 ± 28.27
Group 1: 42.51 ± 22.28
Group 2: 47.81 ± 14.94
Group 3: 61.38 ± 31.25, (p < 0.001)
Lactate dehydrogenase Control group: 386.75 ± 147.98
Group 1: 765.97 ± 483.77
Group 2: 807.10 ± 262.77
Group 3: 866.91 ± 279.63, (p < 0.001
Creatine kinase Control group: 84.18 ± 35.72
Group 1: 110.28 ± 95.21
Group 2: 172.35 ± 118.73
Group 3: 497.88 ± 156.09 (p < 0.001)
Creatine kinase–myocardial band Control group: 67.18 ± 40.91
Group 1: 81.69 ± 23.85
Group 2: 95.00 ± 29.14
Group 3: 127.66 ± 49.53 (p < 0.001)
C-reactive protein Control group: 0.71 ± 0.46
Group 1: 0.80 ± 0.38
Group 2: 1.01 ± 0.58
Group 3: 3.77 ± 2.03 (p < 0.001)
Troponin T Control group: 18.57 ± 4.81
Group 1: 18.32 ± 3.54
Group 2: 26.16 ± 7.16
Group 3: 70.03 ± 15.05 (p < 0.001)
Uric acid Control group: 3.04 ± 0.64
Group 1: 3.31 ± 0.68
Group 2: 3.53 ± 0.80
Group 3: 4.72 ± 1.01 (p < 0.001)
Platelet Control group: 271955.56 ± 70,826
Group 1: 283953.97 ± 82,324
Group 2: 278397 ± 64,684
Group 3: 241356.77 ± 62,525 (p < 0.029)
Luo et al. [55] 2013 China Cohort 40 Pregnant women in gestational age: 50–60 day after 20 min exposure to RF-EMF, were undergoing the induced abortion Electro-magnetic wave emitted from cellular telephone (Global System for Mobile communications network; 900 MHz frequency; maximum power < 1 W; specific absorption rate 1.46 W/kg) Maternal exposure to EMFs from cell phone (N = 20) vs control group: mother not exposure (N = 20) Deferentially expressed proteins profile in chorionic tissues: COMT, Capzb, and antioxidant factor: TXNL-2 Capzb Control group: 0.67 ± 0.2 6
Group 1: 1.8 ± 0.23 (p < 0.05)
COMT Control group: 0.3 ± 0.25
Group 1: 0.7 ± 0.3 (p < 0.05)
TXNL2 Control group: 1.3 ± 0.35
Group 1: 0.9 ± 0.4 (p < 0.05)
Grufferman et al. [41] 2009 USA Case–control 618 (Case: 311 and control: 309) Children under the age of 20 years with and without rhabdomyosarcoma and their mothers X-rays examinations X-ray examinations in mothers throughout pregnancy vs not examination Case rhabdomyosarcoma in children (N = 311); control group (N = 309) 1.9 (1.1–3.4) 6
X-ray examinations in mothers during first trimester vs not examination Case: rhabdomyosarcoma in children (N = 311); control group (N = 309) 5.7 (1.2–27.8)
Shu et al. [42] 2002 USA Case–control 3,828 (Case: 1,842 and control: 1,986) Children under the age of 15 years with and without ALL and their mothers X-rays examinations X-ray examinations in mothers throughout pregnancy vs not examination Case: childhood ALL (N = 1,809); control group (N = 1,950) 1 (0.8–1.3) 5
X-ray pelvimetry examinations in mothers throughout pregnancy vs not examination Case: childhood ALL (N = 1,804); control group (N = 1,942) 1.2 (0.8–1.7)
X-ray examinations of lower abdominal in mothers during preconception vs not examination Case: childhood T cell ALL (N = 181); control group (N = 198) 1.2 (0.7–2.1)
Stålberg et al. [56] 2007 Sweden Case –control 1,036 (Case: 512 and control: 524) Children under the age of 15 years with and without Children Brain tumors and subtypes of brain tumor X-rays examinations Prenatal abdominal X-ray examination in mothers vs not examination Case: childhood all brain tumor (N = 503); control group (N = 512) 1.02 (0.64–1.62) 5
Prenatal abdominal X-ray examination in mothers vs not examination Case: primitive neuro ectodermal tumors (N = 105); control group (N = 512) 1.88 (0.92–3.83)