ArticleOccupational and environmental medicine2006
Predictive validity of a retrospective measure of noise exposure.
Article in Occupational and environmental medicine, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of noise intensity in a dental teaching clinic.BDJ open · 2017Article
- Occupational noise exposure and ischaemic heart disease mortality.Occupational and environmental medicine · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo investigate the validity of measures of noise exposure derived retrospectively for a cohort of nuclear energy workers for the period 1950-98, by investigating their ability to predict hearing loss.
methodsSubjects were men aged 45-65 chosen from a larger group of employees--assembled for a nested case-control study of noise and death from ischaemic heart disease--who had had at least one audiogram after at least five years' work. Average hearing loss, across both ears and the frequencies 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz, was calculated from the last audiogram for each man. Previous noise exposure at work was assessed retrospectively by three hygienists using work histories, noise survey records from 1965-98, and judgement about use of hearing protection devices. Smoking and age at the time of the audiogram were extracted from records. Differences in hearing loss between men categorised by cumulative noise exposure were assessed after controlling for age, smoking, year of test, and previous test experience.
resultsThere were 186 and 150 eligible subjects at sites A and B of the company respectively who were employed for an average of 20 years. Compared to men with less than one year's exposure to levels of 85dB(A) or greater, hearing loss was greater by 3.7 dB (90% CI -2.6 to 10.1), 3.8 dB (90% CI -2.6 to 10.3), 7.0 dB (90% CI 1.1 to 12.9) and 10.1 dB (90% CI 4.2 to 16.0) in the lowest to highest categories of cumulative noise exposure at site B. In contrast, at site A, the corresponding figures were -2.2 dB, -2.4 dB, -1.8 dB, and -4.4 dB, with no confidence interval excluding zero.
conclusionsNoise estimation at one site was shown to have predictive validity in terms of hearing loss, but not at the other site. Reasons for the differences between sites are discussed.
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.