ArticleBMC primary care2025
Risks of electromagnetic fields from the perspective of general practitioners and pediatricians.
Article in BMC primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk perception of electromagnetic fields among school teachers and nursery school teachers: a mixed-methods study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Predictors of Risk Perception Among General Practitioners and Paediatricians Concerning Potential Health Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields.Bioelectromagnetics · 2026Article
- Factors associated with risk perception among school and nursery school teachers concerning potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough there is little evidence for adverse health effects due to exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) below legal limits, worries regarding these effects are relatively frequent in the general population. For many individuals, general practitioners (GPs) and pediatricians are the first point of contact with the health system. Therefore, it is essential to understand their EMF risk perception.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional mixed methods study inviting 3,000 GPs and 2,000 pediatricians sampled from the German Federal Medical Registry, of which 614 (12.3%) participated in an online survey and 25 participated in focus groups. We estimated the prevalence of high risk perception, poor subjective knowledge regarding EMF, and the relevance of EMF in their everyday work correcting for non-response by Multilevel Regression and Poststratification.
resultsAbout a quarter of physicians indicated high risk perception regarding health and EMF. Relevance was low, with about 40% of GPs and about 20% of pediatricians reporting EMF-related consultations during the last year. About 60% of physicians had poor subjective knowledge. Many physicians said they could not rule out the possibility of adverse health effects of EMF due to insufficient knowledge and expressed a need for information to address this knowledge gap.
conclusionsA substantial part of GPs and pediatricians with high risk perception are physicians with poor subjective knowledge regarding EMF who cannot completely rule out EMF below legal limits as a cause of unspecific, unclear symptoms, and who are therefore open to patients' suggestions of EMF as a potential cause.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.