ArticleNoise & health
A simple, cost-effective, and novel method for determining the efficiency of industrial and commercial noise-canceling earmuffs.
Article in Noise & health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05714267 (The Effect of Noise Control and Music Therapy on Anxiety, Vital Signs and Post-Operative Pain in Total Knee Prosthesis Surgery), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
The Effect of Noise Control and Music Therapy on Anxiety, Vital Signs and Post-Operative Pain in Total Knee Prosthesis Surgery
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextThere are several ways to assess the noise reducing efficiency of earmuffs, but they usually involve using human participants and/or specialized equipment.
objectiveThe current study was designed to develop a less labor-intensive, cost-effective, participant-free first-pass method for measuring the efficiency of earmuffs.
methodsWe evaluated the noise-cancelling ability of five different types of earmuffs (3M: Optime 98, Optime 105; iDEA USA V201; Tronsmart Encore S6; Bose QuietComfort 35) under laboratory and field conditions. We compared our results to the microphone-in-real-ear (MIRE) method. Lastly, a survey of college-aged students was also conducted to determine which earmuffs were the most comfortable and provided the best fit.
resultsOf the five earmuffs studied, the Optime 98 and Bose earmuffs were most effective at reducing noise levels in both the laboratory and field. These earmuffs also received the highest scores for comfort, fit, and perceived ability to reduce noise, with Bose being slightly more preferred than Optime 98. The MIRE method provided the same overall results as the laboratory and field tests.
conclusionOur method for evaluating the noise-canceling ability of earmuffs could be used to supplement more complicated testing procedures as a first-pass method.
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.