ArticleInternational archives of occupational and environmental health2019
Validation of self-reported occupational noise exposure in participants of a French case-control study on acoustic neuroma.
Article in International archives of occupational and environmental 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validity of self-reported night shift work among women with and without breast cancer.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2024Article
- An Oxidative Stress Biomarker for Noise-Associated Stroke: Evidence from Human and Mice.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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo validate self-reported occupational loud noise exposure against expert evaluation of noise levels in a French case-control study on acoustic neuroma and to estimate the impact of exposure misclassification on risk estimation.
methodsNoise levels were evaluated in 1006 jobs held by 111 cases and 217 population controls by an expert. Case-control differences in self-reporting were analyzed with logistic models. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and observed agreement of the self-reports were computed relative to the expert evaluation. They were used to calibrate the odds ratio (OR) between lifetime ever occupational loud noise exposure and the risk of acoustic neuroma, without adjustment for measurement error of the expert assessments.
resultsCases reported noise levels in individual jobs closer to the expert assessment than controls, but the case-control difference was small for lifetime exposures. For expert-rated exposure of 80 dB(A), reporting of individual jobs by cases was more sensitive (54% in cases, 37% in controls), whereas specificity (91% in cases, 93% in controls) and observed agreement (82% in cases, 81% in controls) were similar. When lifetime exposure was considered, sensitivity increased (76% in cases, 65% in controls), while cases specificity decreased (84%). When these values were used to calibrate self-reports for exposure misclassification compared to expert evaluation at 80 dB(A), the crude OR of 1.7 was reduced to 1.3.
conclusionsDespite the relatively accurate reporting of loud noise, the impact of the calibration on the OR was non-negligible.
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.