ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2019
Is the Whole More Than the Sum of Its Parts? Health Effects of Different Types of Traffic Noise Combined.
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 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.
- Road Traffic Noise Exposure and Depression/Anxiety: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Pooled it
- Expert perspectives on exposure-response functions for urban health policy: Lessons from a UBDPolicy workshop.Environmental research · 2026Review
- Traffic-Related High Sleep Disturbance in the LIFE-Adult Cohort Study: A Comparison to the WHO Exposure-Response-Curves.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- In Reply.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2019Article
- Burden of Disease Due to Traffic Noise in Germany.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
Many epidemiological studies find that people exposed to aircraft, road or railway traffic noise are at increased risk of illness, including cardiovascular disease (CVD) and depression. It is unclear how the combined exposure to these different types of traffic noise affects disease risks. This study addresses this question with a large secondary data-based case-control study ("NORAH disease risk study"). The Akaike information criterion (AIC) is used to compare two different models estimating the disease risks of combined traffic noise. In comparison with the conventional energetic addition of noise levels, the multiplication of CVD risks as well as depression risks reveals a considerably better model fit as expressed by much lower AIC values. This is also the case when risk differences between different types of traffic noise are taken into account by applying supplements or reductions to the single traffic noise pressure levels in order to identify the best fitting energetic addition model. As a consequence, the conventionally performed energetic addition of noise levels might considerably underestimate the health risks of combined traffic noise. Based on the NORAH disease risk study, "epidemiological risk multiplication" seems to provide a better estimate of the health risks of combined traffic noise exposures compared to energetic addition. If confirmed in further studies, these results should imply consequences for noise protection measures as well as for traffic planning.
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.