Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
We thank Sudan et al 1for their reflections on our work. We appreciate that they reanalysed their data and provided a table of estimates restricting to prenatal cell phone, making their results comparable with that of ours. We acknowledge that, since our study was smaller compared with their study, we obtained less precise risk estimates, but do not agree that our study is uninformative.2 We showed in our paper a consistent non-association between maternal cell phone use and cordless phone use on behavioural problems in children. Even though exposure from cell phones is not identical to that of cordless phones, we would like to highlight that if a biological effect of the exposure to radiofrequency–electromagnetic fields (RF–EMFs) exists, we would expect to observe some similarities regarding the health effects related to cell phones and cordless phones. The fact that we do not …
Contributors MG wrote the first draft of the paper, reviewed it critically for important intellectual content and gave the final approval of the version to be published. AH and RV did a critical revision of the manuscript, and gave the final approval of the version to be published.
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval Approval of the study was obtained from the Central Committee on Research involving Human Subjects in the Netherlands, the Medical Ethical Committees of the participating hospitals and from the Registration Committee of the Municipality of Amsterdam.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.