ReviewProceedings. Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences2016
Are some people suffering as a result of increasing mass exposure of the public to ultrasound in air?
Review in Proceedings. Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- A longitudinal, randomized experimental pilot study to investigate the effects of airborne ultrasound on human mental health, cognition, and brain structure.Scientific reports · 2021Trial
- Effect of age-related extended high frequency hearing loss on the subjective impressions of dental drill noise.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Applying appropriate frequency criteria to advance acoustic behavioural guidance systems for fish.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- A non-destructive technique using digital holographic vibrometry and Lamb waves for quality determination of polymer-metal laminates.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Wireless Power Transfer: Systems, Circuits, Standards, and Use Cases.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Possible Effects on Health of Ultrasound Exposure, Risk Factors in the Work Environment and Occupational Safety Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Air-conducted ultrasound below the hearing threshold elicits functional changes in the cognitive control network.PloS one · 2022Article
- Development of a Personal Ultrasound Exposimeter for Occupational Health Monitoring.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Review of Audiovestibular Symptoms Following Exposure to Acoustic and Electromagnetic Energy Outside Conventional Human Hearing.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Review
- Comment on 'Are some people suffering as a result of increasing mass exposure of the public to ultrasound in air?'Proceedings. Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2017Article
- Synergy of Microfluidics and Ultrasound : Process Intensification Challenges and Opportunities.Topics in current chemistry (Cham) · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
New measurements indicate that the public are being exposed, without their knowledge, to airborne ultrasound. Existing guidelines are insufficient for such exposures; the vast majority refers to occupational exposure only (where workers are aware of the exposure, can be monitored and can wear protection). Existing guidelines are based on an insufficient evidence base, most of which was collected over 40 years ago by researchers who themselves considered it insufficient to finalize guidelines, but which produced preliminary guidelines. This warning of inadequacy was lost as nations and organizations issued 'new' guidelines based on these early guidelines, and through such repetition generated a false impression of consensus. The evidence base is so slim that few reports have progressed far along the sequence from anecdote to case study, to formal scientific controlled trials and epidemiological studies. Early studies reported hearing threshold shifts, nausea, headache, fatigue, migraine and tinnitus, but there is insufficient research on human subjects, and insufficient measurement of fields, to assess what health risk current occupational and public exposures might produce. Furthermore, the assumptions underpinning audiology and physical measurements at high frequencies must be questioned: simple extrapolation of approaches used at lower frequencies does not address current unknowns. Recommendations are provided.
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.