ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2017
Comparison of Annoyance from Railway Noise and Railway Vibration.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Urban Noise and Psychological Distress: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Pooled it
- Investigation on multiple traffic noise near an airport and their effect on nearby residents.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Representative Exposure-Annoyance Relationships Due to Transportation Noises in Japan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Commentary: Post- COVID-19 mobility and traffic noise-induced health effects.International journal of epidemiology · 2021Article
- Economic value of traffic noise reduction depending on residents' annoyance level.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to compare vibration exposure to noise exposure from railway traffic in terms of equal annoyance, i.e., to determine when a certain noise level is equally annoying as a corresponding vibration velocity. Based on questionnaire data from the Train Vibration and Noise Effects (TVANE) research project from residential areas exposed to railway noise and vibration, the dose response relationship for annoyance was estimated. By comparing the relationships between exposure and annoyance for areas both with and without significant vibration exposure, the noise levels and vibration velocities that had an equal probability of causing annoyance was determined using logistic regression. The comparison gives a continuous mapping between vibration velocity in the ground and a corresponding noise level at the facade that are equally annoying. For equivalent noise level at the facade compared to maximum weighted vibration velocity in the ground the probability of annoyance is approximately 20% for 59 dB or 0.48 mm/s, and about 40% for 63 dB or 0.98 mm/s.
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.