ArticleEar and hearing
Hearing Protector Attenuation and Noise Exposure Among Metal Manufacturing Workers.
Article in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The sound of safety: exploring the determinants of prevention intention in noisy industrial workplaces.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Development and initial validation of the Chinese Version of the Noise Exposure Questionnaire (C-NEQ).BMC public health · 2022Article
- Prevalence of hearing protection device non-use among noise-exposed US workers in 2007 and 2014.American journal of industrial medicine · 2021Article
- Contributions and limitations of using machine learning to predict noise-induced hearing loss.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2021Review
- Noise-induced hearing loss and its prevention: Integration of data from animal models and human clinical trials.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2019Review
- Hearing loss, lead (Pb) exposure, and noise: a sound approach to ototoxicity exploration.Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews · 2018Review
- Extended High-Frequency Audiometry in Early Detection of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss in Occupational Settings.Noise & healthArticle
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
Abstract
objectivesThis study utilized personal noise measurements and fit-testing to evaluate the association between noise exposures and personal attenuation rating (PAR) values among participating workers, and second, to compare the attenuated exposure levels received by the workers and the British Standards Institute's recommended noise exposure range of 70 to 80 dBA.
designWe measured hearing protection device (HPD) attenuation among a sample of 91 workers at 2 US metal manufacturing facilities, through performance of personal noise dosimetry measurements and HPD fit-testing over multiple work shifts. We compared this testing with participant questionnaires and annual audiometric hearing threshold results.
resultsThe average 8-hr time-weighted average noise exposures for study participants was 79.8 dBA (SD = 7.0 dBA), and the average PAR from fit-testing was 20.1 dB (±6.7 dB). While differences existed between sites, 84% of the 251 PAR measurements resulted in effective protection levels below the recommended 70 dBA (indicating overprotection), while workers were underprotected (i.e., effective exposures >80 dBA) during <1% of monitored shifts. Our results also demonstrated a significant positive relationship between measured noise exposure and PAR among non-custom-molded plug users (p = 0.04). Non-custom-molded plug wearers also showed a significant increase in PAR by sequential fit-test interaction (p = 0.01), where on average, subsequent fit-testing resulted in increasingly higher HPD attenuation. Workers at site 1 showed higher PARs. PARs were significantly related to race, even when adjusting for site location. While age, hearing threshold level, task, and self-reported tinnitus showed no significant effect on individual PAR in an unadjusted model, site, race, and sand- or water-blasting activities were significant predictors in adjusted models. Within-worker variability in time-weighted averages and PARs across repeated measurements was substantially lower than variability between workers.
conclusionsCareful selection of HPDs is necessary to minimize instances of overprotection to workers in low and moderate occupational noise environments. The use of fit-testing in hearing conservation programs to evaluate PAR is recommended to avoid overprotection from noise exposure while also minimizing instances of under-attenuation.
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.