Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22693267›Full record

ArticleOccupational and environmental medicine2012

10-Year prospective study of noise exposure and hearing damage among construction workers.

Noah S Seixas, Rick Neitzel, Bert Stover, Lianne Sheppard, Patrick Feeney, David Mills, Sharon Kujawa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Occupational and environmental medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Occupational noise exposure and hearing: a systematic review.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2016
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Noah S SeixasDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98115, USA. nseixas@uw.edu
Rick Neitzel
Bert Stover
Lianne Sheppard
Patrick Feeney
David Mills
Sharon Kujawa

Funding

Longitudinal follow-up of hearing in construction workersR01OH003912 · OH · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI SEIXAS, NOAH S · 1999 to 2009
$1.7M
NIOSH CDC HHS 5R01 OH003912NIOSH CDC HHS R01 OH003912
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo characterise the effects of noise exposure, including intermittent and peaky exposure, on hearing damage as assessed by standard pure-tone thresholds and otoacoustic emissions, a longitudinal study was conducted on newly hired construction apprentices and controls over a 10-year period.

methodsAmong the 456 subjects recruited at baseline, 316 had at least two (mean 4.6) examinations and were included in this analysis. Annual examinations included hearing threshold levels (HTLs) for air conducted pure tones and distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) amplitudes. Task-based occupational noise exposure levels and recreational exposures were estimated. Linear mixed models were fit for HTLs and DPOAEs at 3, 4 and 6 kHz in relation to time since baseline and average noise level since baseline, while controlling for hearing level at baseline and other risk factors.

resultsEstimated L(EQ) noise exposures were 87±3.6 dBA among the construction workers. Linear mixed modelling demonstrated significant exposure-related elevations in HTL of about 2-3 dB over a projected 10-year period at 3, 4 or 6 kHz for a 10 dB increase in exposure. The DPOAE models (using L1=40) predicted about 1 dB decrease in emission amplitude over 10 years for a 10 dB increase in exposure.

conclusionsThe study provides evidence of noise-induced damage at an average exposure level around the 85 dBA level. The predicted change in HTLs was somewhat higher than would be predicted by standard hearing loss models, after accounting for hearing loss at baseline. Limited evidence for an enhanced effect of high peak component noise was observed, and DPOAEs, although similarly affected, showed no advantage over standard hearing threshold evaluation in detecting effects of noise on the ear and hearing.

Indexed as

Construction IndustryHearingAdultAuditory ThresholdFemaleHearing Loss, Noise-InducedHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleNoiseOccupational DiseasesOccupational ExposureOtoacoustic Emissions, SpontaneousProspective StudiesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID22693267
PMCPMC4570847

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.