Table 1.

Characteristics of studies identified in the systematic review, and an assessment of study quality

Authors	Year	Location	Study design	Sample size	Ages	Outcome	Radiation exposure	Timing of exposure	Measure of association	Study quality assessment*
Andreassi et al	2020	Italy	Case–control	357	37.2 ± 5.2	LBW Miscarriage Stillbirth	Medical occupation	Paternal only exposure	Odds ratios	Moderate
Chen et al	2018	China	Retrospective cohort	192,492	25.1 ± 3.9	LBW	Medical diagnostic	Paternal only exposure	Odds ratio	Good
Chiarelli et al	2000	Canada	Cohort	668	> 18	LBW Miscarriage	Medical therapeutic	Prior to pregnancy	Odds ratios	Good
Choi et al	2013	South Korea	Age-matched cohort study	642	31.7 ± 3.8	Birth weight Gestational age	Medical diagnostic	During pregnancy	Odds ratio (excluded from meta-analysis)	Moderate
Doyle et al	2000	England	Retrospective cohort	27,261	39.8 ± 4.1	Miscarriage Stillbirth	Nuclear occupation	Prior to pregnancy	Odds ratio	Moderate
Fucic et al	2008	Croatia	Case–control cohort	462	12–51	Miscarriage	Medical occupation	Prior to pregnancy	Odds ratio	Good
Goldberg et al	1997	Canada	Retrospective cohort	2426	> 15	LBW Miscarriage Stillbirth	Medical diagnostic	Prior to pregnancy	Odds ratio	Good
Gong et al	2017	Texas, USA	Case–control	3,481,077	> 11	LBW	Residential proximity	Prior to and during pregnancy	Odds ratio (excluded from meta-analysis)	Good
Grajewski et al	2015	USA	Case–control	844	26–49	Miscarriage	Flight occupation	During pregnancy	Odds ratio	Good
Green et al	2002	Canada USA	Retrospective cohort	4029	> 15	LBW Miscarriage Stillbirth	Medical therapeutic	Prior to pregnancy	Relative Risk	Good
Green et al	2010	Canada	Case–control	1856	> 15	LBW	Medical therapeutic	Prior to pregnancy	Odds ratios derived from frequencies	Good
Guilbaud et al	2019	France	Prospective cohort	638	30.4 ± 0.7	Miscarriage Gestational age	Medical diagnostic	During pregnancy	Odds ratio	Good
Ha et al	2015	Florida, USA	Prospective cohort	423,719	26.7 ± 7.1	LBW	Residential proximity	During pregnancy	Odds ratio (excluded from meta-analysis)	Good
Hatch et al	2017	Chernobyl	Retrospective cohort	2582		Birth weight Gestational age	Nuclear disaster	During pregnancy	Parameter estimate (excluded from meta-analysis)	Good
Hujoel et al	2004	USA	Case–control	5585	12–45	LBW	Medical diagnostic	During pregnancy	Odds ratio	Good
Igumnov & Drozdovitch	2000	Chernobyl	Case–control	500		Birth weight	Nuclear disaster	During pregnancy	Slope (excluded from meta-analysis)	Moderate
Kallen et al	1998	Sweden	Cohort	19,494		LBW Stillbirth Gestational age	Medical therapeutic	Prior to pregnancy	Relative risk	Moderate
Lawson et al	2012	USA	Retrospective cohort	7482	25–42	Miscarriage	Medical occupation	During pregnancy	Odds ratio	Good
Mortazavi et al	2013	Iran	Cohort	1200	20–40	LBW	Medical diagnostic	During pregnancy	Mean + SD (excluded from meta-analysis)	Moderate
Parker et al	1999	Cumbria, UK	Cohort	251,812	Any	Stillbirth	Nuclear occupation	Paternal only exposure	Odds ratio	Moderate
Reulen et al	2009	Britain, UK	Retrospective cohort	7300	> 16	LBW Miscarriage Stillbirth	Medical therapeutic	Prior to pregnancy	Odds ratio	Good
Signorello et al	2006	Canada USA	Retrospective cohort	3376	Any	LBW	Medical therapeutic	Prior to pregnancy	Odds ratio	Good
Tsou et al	2020	Taiwan, China	Case–control	853	27.1 ± 3.8	LBW Birth weight	Residential proximity	During pregnancy	Odds ratio (excluded from meta-analysis)	Moderate
van de Loo	2019	Nether lands	Nested cohort	275	> 18	LBW Miscarriage	Medical therapeutic	Prior to pregnancy	Odds ratio (excluded from meta-analysis)	Moderate
Winther et al	2008	Denmark	Cohort	34,922	12–48	Miscarriage Stillbirth	Medical therapeutic	Prior to pregnancy	Proportion ratio	Moderate
Zhang et al	2020	Wuhan, China	Prospective cohort	8500	28.6 ± 3.7	Birth weight	Residential proximity	During pregnancy	Odds ratio (excluded from meta-analysis)	Good

*The quality of the study was assessed by the criteria described by (Moola et al. 2020)