Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27397968›Full record

ArticleAcoustics Australia2016

Uncovering effective strategies for hearing loss prevention.

Thais C Morata, Deanna Meinke

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acoustics Australia, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Evaluation of the HearWell Pilot Program: A ParticipatoryInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  3. Article
  4. South African hearing conservation programmes in the context of tele-audiology: A scoping review.The South African journal of communication disorders = Die Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir Kommunikasieafwykings · 2020
    Article
  5. Classification of audiograms in the prevention of noise-induced hearing loss: A clinical perspective.The South African journal of communication disorders = Die Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir Kommunikasieafwykings · 2020
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Thais C MorataDivision of Applied Research and Technology, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1190 Tusculum Avenue/ MS C27, Cincinnati, OH 45226, USA, (001-513)533-8487.
Deanna MeinkeAudiology and Speech-Language Sciences, University of Northern Colorado, (001-970)351.1600, Deanna.Meinke@unco.edu.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health · USUniversity of Northern Colorado · US

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Occupational health agencies, researchers and policy makers have recognized the need for evidence on the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce or prevent workplace injuries and illnesses. While many workplaces comply with legal or obligatory requirements and implement recommended interventions, few publications exist documenting the effectiveness of these actions. Additionally, some workplaces have discovered through their own processes, novel ways to reduce the risk of injury. Peer-reviewed information on the effectiveness of the many strategies and approaches currently in use could help correct weaknesses, or further encourage their adoption and expansion. The evaluation of intervention effectiveness would certainly contribute to improved worker health and safety. This need is particularly relevant regarding noise exposure in the workplace and hearing loss prevention interventions. In a 2006 review of the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Hearing Loss Research Program, the independent National Academies of Sciences recommended that NIOSH place greater emphasis on identifying the effectiveness of hearing loss prevention measures on the basis of outcomes that are as closely related as possible to reducing noise exposure and work related hearing loss (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11721). NIOSH used two different approaches to address that recommendation: the first one was to conduct research, including broad systematic reviews on the effectiveness of interventions to prevent occupational noise-induced hearing loss. The second was to create an award program, the Safe-In-Sound Excellence in Hearing Loss Prevention Award™, to identify and honor excellent real-world examples of noise control and other hearing loss prevention practices and innovations.

Indexed as

Buy QuietEvidence-based practicehearing conservationintervention effectivenessnoise control

Identifiers

PMID27397968
PMCPMC4930158
OpenAlexW2294220108

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.