ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2019
Reply to Guski, Schreckenberg, Schuemer, Brink and Stansfeld: Comment on Gjestland, T. A Systematic Review of the Basis for WHO's New Recommendation for Limiting Aircraft Noise Annoyance.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Effect of an Alternative Definition of "Percent Highly Annoyed" on the Exposure-Response Relationship: Comparison of Noise Annoyance Responses Measured by ICBEN 5-Point Verbal and 11-Point Numerical Scales.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Evidence Relating to Environmental Noise Exposure and Annoyance, Sleep Disturbance, Cardio-Vascular and Metabolic Health Outcomes in the Context of IGCB (N): A Scoping Review of New Evidence.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
- Comment on
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The European Regional Office of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2018) recently dramatically lowered its former (WHO, 2000) recommendations for cumulative aircraft noise exposure levels associated with risks of adverse public health effects. WHO's recommendations, although lacking the force of law, are nonetheless of interest to aviation regulatory bodies and to the public at large. It is therefore important that WHO's recent recommendations receive and withstand careful scrutiny. WHO's (2018) recommendations are based on controversial assumptions, analyses and interpretations prepared by Guski et al. (2017). Gjestland (2018) identified a number of limitations of the opinions expressed by Guski et al. (2017). Guski et al. (2019) subsequently challenged some of Gjestland's (2018) observations. This paper responds to the defenses offered by Guski et al. (2019) of the opinions expressed in their prior (2017) publication.
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.